Is there hypocrisy?

Are there some things that should damage the credibility of men and women who post on Christian manosphere blogs? Do the same rules apply to men and women in this regard?

Can we consider frivorce one of the central rallying cries of the Christian manosphere? I think so.

The sphere clearly considers slut-hood a rallying cry, it being the antithesis of female virtue. The Christian blogosphere has less than zero tolerance even to the point of denying redemption as a possibility in many cases.

What then does the sphere consider about frivorce? Is a woman who divorced her husband for frivolous reasons a credible advocate for submission and male headship? Can a woman who divorced a husband for frivolous reasons become something of a leader of women, a teacher of women, towards the ends that the sphere seeks?

These questions have male counterparts as well.

I’m not positing an answer, I’m posing the question. We could do well to guard against tickled ear syndrome in ALL its forms.



19 thoughts on “Is there hypocrisy?

  1. I am the first and only wife of my first and only husband, but I wonder if the question couldn’t as easily be this:

    Can a woman who chose tingles over Christ when selecting her own husband become something of a leader of women, a teacher of women, towards the ends that the sphere seeks?

    I would say yes, but that would be self-serving, wouldn’t it? Is it self-serving for anyone who has committed sin in the past to preach to others in the present?

    That would disqualify a lot of people if we use that standard wouldn’t it?

    Looking forward to the discussion, as always.

  2. I can see how you read it that way, but thats not how I meant this. I am actually a very firm believer in a sinners right to speak on morality, even the morality of a sin they have committed or are committing.
    Thats not the hypocrisy I was getting at really.
    It is a much more specific thing I was getting at, where one (lack better terms) violates a basic tenet of the Christian manosphere, one that is likely the largest single source of male participants and male converts that lurk, that being frivolous divorce.
    For someone to speak with authority about being submissive (somewhere buried in that is a conundrum of sorts) , being a leader of thought and pontification on same, can that person have rationalized their own divorce and severed it from relevance?
    I’m asking this question because i think there are several women who fit that description.
    Following tingles per se is a Christian manosphere observation, a germane one that is a potential building block to the operative tenets in the sphere. Lets put it this way using your example…..there isnt a victim in the sphere from what YOU did. Had the propensity to follow tingle led you to another man, a divorce, then you wrote as you do, then you’d be in the group Im talking about.

    The women who come in and stir up dust because they represent openly what we see as wrong, these women are lost in their rationalizations, always have been, maybe always will be.
    Others maybe have it both ways, and because the Christian manosphere message these women carry is agreeable and supported, and they offer up a female ally, men over look that past issue while the berate, sometimes hatefully, someone like you. I dont do relativism or at least strive not too.

  3. Can a woman, who has frivolously divorced her husband, be a leader/teacher against frivolous divorce? Well, yes, on one condition…. She must repent of her sin. In this case repentance includes returning to her husband, if he will have her back. If she has divorced him frivolously and taken his children, repentance would include giving her ex full custody if they cannot be reconciled, as well as giving up any alimony and/or child support payments. She cannot continue in her sin, nor can she continue reaping the carnal benefits of sin, and still be an advocate against said sin. The apostle Paul was the “chief of sinners”, yet he became the Gospel’s foremost advocate…. AFTER he repented of his sins. God will forgive if we repent, and man should, but repentance is necessary for reconciliation to either God or man.

  4. Good point, but she must do many of those things regardless if she were to be a leader against frivorce.
    The leadership is, however, not against frivorce so much as its for how to be a wife, how to submit and comport.
    It is irrelevant what the leadership topic is, your response still applies.
    I have no way of knowing this but suspect the abuse trump card could have come in handy somewhere and that seems to be a slate wiper in and of itself

  5. I just don’t see much credibility in women seeking frivorce. My soon to be ex-wife is a school nurse. She was asked by a Christian youth leader to go to camp with them. This leader is aware of our situation, and has known me for 25 years, and her for nearly 20 years. She knows that there were no real permanent issues in our marriage that couldn’t have been handled with a little perseverance and turning off the selfishness. She wanted her to go because she has influence and relationships with the kids. Her current example just doesn’t matter. Christians anymore are just about the tally marks. How many confessions of faith, and how many seats are filled. It hasn’t been about living a Biblically grounded life for a long time.

    Now based on the Christian principles, it is who you are now, and what you are doing now that matters. My wife has made it clear to anyone who listens, she doesn’t care what I think. She doesn’t care that her moving yet again makes it harder for me to parent my children. Its about her and her desires. I am just some baggage she can’t get rid of, and a convenient baby sitter. This is what is being raised to leadership. These are women that will lead other women straight to the court house for their own divorce. Teaching them that happiness is what God has planned for their life, and that not being happy in marriage is surely cause for divorce.

  6. I agree. In fact as much as this ground has been covered, to be honest it has not been covered as much as it should be, and there are many reasons. I wrote this because there are some women writing for us, our demographic of red pill men, burned men, call us what you will, some or all the above…..and for me this links together.
    In the Christian manoshpere and especially the echo chamber that is our blog roll, Im including myself equally as far as guilt, I’m paltry as far as my reach….we cover sluts, sex, and game, oy vey do we cover game. We also cover churchianity and the Christian female paradigm eaning the perversion of Ephesians. The women who have frivorced and are loquacious writers thrive in those topics and say all the right things. But if we got lathered up about frivorce and stayed lathered up, what would they have to say about it?
    For men who are being frivorced, have been, or have been threatened, it is cathartic to be in discussions regarding this, and I do not discount the importance of that. Its catching the man while he is at his most acute on the subject that is ultimately where our collective rubber does or could meet the road.

  7. I have a really hard time giving credibility to women on these topics. There are a few who earn it. Most of the time, I find that women describe the line, and then bend it so that they are on the right side of it. They aren’t saddened by their choice in the past, but are focused on making that choice okay, while taking the brave stand for what is right. I find that men in similar circumstances won’t do that. They will either define a clear line that is in conflict with my beliefs and defend the line, or they will define the line where it belongs, and admit that they were on the wrong side of it in the past. I think as men, we won’t let other men get away with bending things around their circumstance to justify their actions, yet we will do it for women. Until we hold women to the same standards that we hold me for communicating on issues of truth and justice, we will continue to lose the battles.

    Men need to be up in arms about frivorce. It destroys our culture. It ultimately enslaves men to the system, and it enslaves the women they want to defend. These women are now slaves to the financial resources of the men granted to them through the state. They have to play by the rules to reap all the benefits. There is no freedom in this divorce culture. The moment you the vows are taken, both parties are now a part of the system that ultimately leads to most children spending some part of their childhood in a broken home. Women who go against the system are often forced back into it, because a judge rarely gets overturned for following guidelines from the state government or supreme court.

  8. I think your question is missing something. It would seem the answer is “maybe”.

    It would seem there are two categories of women that would fit into the category of “suitable to lead after frivorce”.

    Those are obvious the repentant and the unrepentant.

    A woman who frivorced and profoundly regretted what she did and realizes the error of what she did would seem to be an ideal candidate for talking to people about why it is a horrible idea. Much like former drug addicts or the like.

    She has seen the harm she has done and repented (genuinely) of it and seeks to be an example of what not to do to others. This woman would seem to be ideal for teaching others in this subject matter because she has first hand experience that what is usually sold to people on this topic is a bunch of lies and that the results are not what are promised.

    I’m not sure how a woman of the other sort could possibly be taken seriously though on a topic like submission and headship. If she has frivorced and is unrepentant about it, then what would it even mean for her to speak of “submission”? It would be a textbook case of hypocrisy. Failing to practice what they preach.

    Although, are you sure someone doing this would even be using “submission” in a meaningfully biblical sense of the word? It would seem that such a woman would have some private definition of “submission” to a husbands “leadership” that generally means nothing of the sort.

  9. It would seem that such a woman would have some private definition of “submission” to a husbands “leadership” that generally means nothing of the sort.


    True, but thats what I am talking about. I think I have found a very very subtle form of chivalry, even white knighting, present among the most steadfast in the chamber here.

  10. I think I have found a very very subtle form of chivalry, even white knighting, present among the most steadfast in the chamber here.

    I think so too.

  11. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Summer’s End Edition « Patriactionary

  12. If you were to go to a series of seminars run by King David of Israel, you’d probably gladly hear the ones about how to praise God, how to have thanksgiving, how to have faith, how to repent. You probably wouldn’t want to listen to him talk about how to have a successful family life.

    Same in this case. Someone who frivorces isn’t qualified to talk about how to have a successful marriage–unless of course their second or third marriage had them realizing their previous mistakes, owning them and so on. As in “You know, I found my other marriages had exactly the same problems, and part of that problem was me. If I’d stuck around, things might have ended up a lot better.” Because that’s usually (not always) the case.

    So it depends on what we’re trying to learn. If David talking about family said, “I didn’t take sufficient authority over my family while I had the chances, and because I didn’t give my sons guidance they didn’t learn moral strength.” we would listen because it would be about a man explaining his mistakes and advising others how to avoid making them. If he sidestepped that and simply said “here are ten steps towards having a happy family” we’d be understandably skeptical.

  13. @sojournerscribe – The men hear the message. They internalize the messages from the church. The problem is the messages impose an impossible standard. It is a hyper-spiritualized message that essentially says that men if do these things, then your wife WILL do these things, and the fact that your wife IS NOT doing these things, means that you ARE NOT doing the things you are supposed to do. Its a formula or magical incantation that is supposedly going to control the choices and spiritual life of another person. That woman is talked about as if she is a marionette simply responding to the strings being pulled, and the man is pulling the wrong strings as the puppeteer. This is a message that when men have a successful marriage makes them feel very powerful. When it fails, it knocks the faith right of them. I was trying to take complete responsibility for what was happening in my family, and she was blaming me. The problem is she was making choices on her own. The end result is I have awakened to the truth or lack there of in these messages, and she has not. She continues to blame me, and will go on to make the same mistakes again. I on the other hand will make brand new mistakes, and probably big ones.

    There is a flip side to this, that women are wired different from the men. They are created to follow a certain way. The image of the puppeteer is wrong, but game demonstrates that you can legitimately influence how a woman feels with your action. Failing to game your wife, does not make you guilty of her discarding the vows. She is responsible for her actions. Gaming your wife may give you a happier marriage, but it is not a Biblical requirement. Being a strong leader is a spiritual discipline that men are supposed to exercise in their home, but his failure to do so is not grounds for divorce, and does not remove the requirements for women to do work on doing their part of the bargain as well as they can on their own. Biblical marriage is not a partnership. It comes with a set of commands for each person to follow in their interactions towards the other person. Those commands are not contingent on the actions of the other person. This is how Christian marriage is supposed to be different.

    I would have never thought it, but those rules or commands have been twisted as secular marriage traditions invaded the church with feminism. The worst marriages I have ever seen, my own included are those of Christians. Feminist ideas combined with the Christian tradition turns marriage into a prison cell with no escape. This is sad. I don’t know that so long as there is a legal standard for marriage that it ever gets fixed.

  14. Sadly the dichotomy is lost to many of the men. Maybe the pattern is that the men mezmerized are not victims of frivorce or it hasn’t touched them at all in a powerful way hence they overlook it and eat up the rest of the tasty chef salad. After all the croutons can be spicy, the presentation envy of Better Homes and Gardens, and the ingredients seemingly not belonging together, when mixed. offer a compelling edginess that men are drawn to.
    Truth is, I cannot have affairs and lecture about fidelity unless as souj says its to wallow in confession pointing out how wrong it was and then combine that with what solved my urge to do that in the first place.
    Similarly the frivorced woman should not do whats analogous.
    But I am more bothered by the male response than I am the act itself honestly. This is after all the so called Christian manosphere, where the most dogmatic are respected for the most part rightly so, yet in a funny way they have been cyber ensnared by the women Proverbs 5 warns about. They are not having affairs with these women, they are however doing a subtle form of exactly what the church white knights do.
    A couple of weeks ago I was asked if Id be willing to write something for a blog that is read by lots of Christian women. I made some conditions and agreed, one was that the owner of the blog had to be the couple, not the man or woman alone, and that we work together to arrive at what was said.
    I dont want to get into specifics, but the man jettisoned the idea right away, and I expected that. Why? And why is it relevant here? The man is a Christian white knight extraordinaire and is most comfortable in sack cloth w/ men step up written on the front and back and it was distasteful to hold women to account. Some of that stems from the female feedback these men get, they get a boost from it, it feels good to be approved by women….we all feel that….
    So in this case here its a different thing, the women are not lavishing praise on the men, the women have created something that seems new and cool (lack better words) and the men sort of join up wanting to be “in”. Its a very similar dynamic because it does involve men defending women, pure white knighting.

  15. Sage comments. Dead on correct, Ive stated similar many times that adding Christian to marriage today adds just another layer of controls for the woman, a shiny new set of buttons and levers, and here she has The Personal Jesus (TM) to back her.
    It is exactly a relationship where your role is defined by a 3rd party….God…..(not The Personal Jesus).

    The reason the topic of frivorce is for me the bottom line is it is comprised of all the other things we talk about in our echo chamber of like minded blogs. Submission or its lack, fidelity/sluthood, sexual denial and/or conditionality, control, leadership, gender roles, respect, love, faith, suffering and happiness, the law and the state, and the utter lack of female accountability to anyone….all of it either ends in frivorce OR the specter of frivorce is writ large on it all day every day.

    Its why I raised this hypocrisy as I saw it. Its like a 3rd way or something, to manipulate even the most steadfast men who take 1-a-day red pills and are faithful men, now they are falling under a new amped version of feminist rebellion masked as sophisticated leadership for women.

    I was trying to take complete responsibility for what was happening in my family, and she was blaming me.

    You were trying to take the blame AND she was blaming you….interesting word choices because to a woman those are separate things. To me, you taking the blame and her blaming you are the same end result, but to her its 2 separate things that add up to 2 things.
    I had a counselor tell me once near 10 years ago that in his experience the men in the couples he saw were generally guilty of what he called over confessing, taking the routine of lets sit her and fix the man very seriously. His practice was suffering as he set about to correct that and not just pay lip service to holding all to account.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s