A Pep(e) talk for men: Churchianity on balance; back to basics

In the comments section after the post 40 Shades of Stupidity, commenter Pepe illustrates one of the central tenets of churchianity. It is a bedrock principle from which can be drawn every sort of rationalization and dissembly. You won’t find this tenet listed in church bulletins under “We Believe”. You will, however, see the form of wisdom derived from it reflected in the very DNA of the churchian church, manifested in every manner of new conventional wisdom and cliché driven faith based churchian behavior. The tenet is balance. It is too clever by half, though it charms the socks off those who invoke it.  From the act of will that elevates balance to a sacred concept, Pepe demonstrates how the analysis of factual data is pre-decided and made to, above all, reflect back balance in all things. Balance is a goal, an excuse, an answer, and a status.

This is not surprising. Balance is a tenet of secular atheism as well. Watch TV advertizements for just about anything from food to furniture, from exercise to hormone supplements, and there will be some mention of how it helps you live a life of balance. Oh goodness, folks love balance, saying it, FEEEEEELING it, evoking it (cue soft reveal music…. Ahhhhhhhhh; See woman on ocean front cliff in lotus pose).

Somebody gimme a Namaste!

As usual,there is nothing to differentiate secular culture from churchian culture except some additional bad manifestations beyond the secular examples mentioned above.

Pepe pulls out the painfully misanalysed fact that women buy all these relationship books and asks do we not therefore realize it is the ladies that care?

What Pepe misses is the fact that this superficial shopping statistic is bereft of further consideration. The reasons pepe assumes for the book shopping are the very most obvious ones one could use to explain it. But,  men buy more books on home repairs, therefore he cares more about home repairs than a woman right? Try telling a woman that idea, that men care more about the state of the domicile based on the fact that the vast majority of books about domicile fix up and remodel are bought by men. Do you think that would go unchallenged? It actually SHOULD be challenged. It says nothing about who CARES more about the domicile, who worries it across their mind most, who daydreams and ponders it the most. What it says it that he is the one who has a stronger urge to tinker with it, not that he cares more than she does about its state.

Women invest, they read and discuss, and then, armed with the nuggets they find they go to their Personal Jesus ™ in prayer.

Take Lisa for example (names changed to protect the…. ah forget it )

“Dear Personal Jesus, I read today that a husband who doesn’t live with his wife in an understanding way can be identified by how the wife feels, that a woman can just discern these things and just know if her husband is the man he is called to be. And while I had not realized this, I am wondering if I am under emotional abuse and neglect. My friend Laurie told me that, now that I’d mentioned it, she could see that my Harry is aloof and too focused on our present financial difficulties and that he has taken little time to learn MY heart, and MY heart is hurting. Please reveal to me what you would have me to do. Amen”

In this case she has read some relational books and the examples written in them-those little “John and Sally were married 10 years when Sally realized something wasn’t right” anecdotes. These things always end with some revelation that John had once he was held up to the light by the spiritually supreme being in the home (Sally) as the lame husband he is, and he gets some good strong men to give him a talkin’ to, and he gets right. He finds balance. OF COURSE, Sally, knowing that the appearance of balance is, as a churchian concept, as important as actually having the same number of relational milligram weights on each side of the scale, so she runs things through her mind (and through her conversations with friends) like, “I know I’m not perfect, but I also know I am just deeply unhappy and look, I’m the one reading about how to fix this, so yeah, I’m in balance.

Sally’s balanced scale…..its a metaphor. It doesn’t really mean balance you know, it means the sensation of balance in her heart!

ethics-scale

In addition to balance being something that makes her feel warm and cozy, Sally feels empathy with the women in the anecdotes that are written in the books. But the empathy is hers aimed at them and that just won’t do; it makes her craving to receive empathy kick into high gear. “I gotta get me summa that”, she finally realizes, and lo and behold right here in the book it shows her how to build the Tesla coil of empathy generators! Empathy is literally in the air inside marital homes, and can be harnessed just like Tesla’s radio waves.

She just has to find something to feel bad about in her marriage.

There are 17 freaking chapters of problems to choose from, and this book has moxy because it is written by a man and his wife who run one of those massive ministries. After each anecdote the authors share their own experiences. The man writes that he too has done this neglecting of his wife’s heart  (or whichever of the 17 choices), and how wonderful it is now that he has learned how to make every aspect of their marriage look and feel like those images of Jesus washing feet.  She has a veritable catalog of empathy bait to waggle in front of her friends until she finds some that empathize, and even better, for her to also empathize with by convincing them they may be experiencing these injustices as well.  This feeds her craving; this creates craving in others. She squirms pleasantly when she reads the (permissible) emotionally pornographic churchian word construct of Servant Leadership. THAT she can get behind er beside, er, no, out in front of….yes, in front of, that reflects her strong independence better.

[Fact, divorce spreads through female on female contact. The CDC (my organization of one, the Centers for Divorce Control) tracks it closely. ]

Back to her knees praying to her Personal Jesus ™: “I know you want me to be happy because I know you have plans not to harm me and to prosper me and a future and all the things work to the good and there is no condemnation and well, I know you want me away from the torture of this abuse…..will you release men from this hell? Amen”

Harry comes home to find Lisa sitting in a white room on white furniture holding a white ceramic mug, white leggings curled up under her, a few books open on the coffee table, staring pensively at an inactive fireplace. (its summer folks)

“The kids are at Laurie’s”

“Uh, ok…whats up?”

“We need to talk Harry”

This replaces the Tesla coil with a nuclear fusion empathy generator because no matter his reaction, she can recount it, embellished it, and she can start to drag the husbands of her friends into it because her friends will tell their husbands that they have discovered that Lisa is being abused.

911 to pastors, counselors, family and friends…. Harry is begging, Harry is on the phone with Joel and Kathy Davisson for Pete’s sake (it cannot be for God’s sake to be sure) and he exists these days between the carpet backing and the cement slab their home is built on….so low….his time there spent seeking yet lower places from which to supplicate.

Back to here and now.

This is a fair, if contrived and simplistic, explanation of the phenomenon billed as female relational supremacy and elevated emotional capacity.

Stepping back from all of this and looking at numbers, yes, numbers, like 70/100 means 70%, those kinds of numbers, we see that various versions of the above account for the female filing of 70% of divorces. People like Pepe will, when confronted with numbers, meet their own standards for empirical rebuttal by allowing that it’s a balanced problem (see image above) and if both would just follow God, you know, we could move away from these dysfunctions and marriages would heal.

Balance is an olive branch that women and supplicated men like to extend. Who in their right (churchian) mind would argue against 50/50….against balance? Balance, the esoteric churchian concept, masks a multitude of imbalance in ways that make Rodney King’s “why can’t we all get along” look like functional practical advice instead of an empty platitude.

I realize most people who read this blog by jumping here from other testostosphere blogs know this stuff well. But because  I am a Christian man and write about Christian marriage concepts, sometimes I have readers popping in because of a keyword search on a Christian relational topic. These churchian women and white knight men need to try and do some honest, painful self-reflection, maybe find some balance.

Balance is a word people like to use. It means whatever it needs to mean to plug a leak in their cognitive dissonance tank, which is large enough to never naturally over flow. That women buy the books and seek the counseling is anything but an altruistic reflection on their relational acumen. It is a symptom of unrestrained craving for emotional stimulus.

Don’t doubt me.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “A Pep(e) talk for men: Churchianity on balance; back to basics

  1. Excellent explanation of how that particular conclusion, that women care more about the marriage, isn’t supported by the fact that women buy more relationship books. If women really did care more then they wouldn’t be the one’s filing 70% of all divorces.

  2. I was dating this woman last year, and at first we were having a nice time. One thing I tried to make sure of was that we didn’t get too intimate. I also frankly was not ready to spend all my time with someone else. However as things went on over about 3 months or so she began to get really clingy. She wanted a LOT of affection, more than I felt was good while we were trying to get to know one another. So she finally got out the book “His Needs, Her Needs” (which I had already read) and wanted to talk about it with me. I strongly suspected she just wanted to use the book to prove to me that she should be getting a lot more affection. I suggested that the book says that couples need to learn to compromise and understand one another. This didn’t go over so well.

    What was interesting to me was how she reacted to me saying “I need more space than you’re giving me. I need you to be glad of the things that are good about our relationship.” And in her own words, she felt that 95% of our relationship was wonderful, but that other 5% (lack of intense almost constant affection) really troubled her. So the fact that I treated her with respect, was a good conversationalist, was someone she respected and admired, that she was very attracted to me, that I got along well with her family when I met them, etc, etc, actually weighed the same as the 5% that was missing. When I pointed out that I was being more affectionate than the norm because of that but expected in turn for her to understand that space meant space. It meant that I didn’t want to talk anymore after a date was over–calling me when I got home unless it was an emergency or something wasn’t pleasing to me, for example. But because she had decided that if I didn’t want to talk to her almost constantly, didn’t want to see her nearly every day and didn’t want to be constantly hugging and kissing, sitting BESIDE one another at a restaurant, that it meant I didn’t care for her. This was why I ended the relationship.

    Nature or nurture or whatever, women are taught in our culture to expect that their emotional whims should be met. Feminism is only partly at fault for this–feminism generally teaching of course that women’s primary role throughout history has been to be victims of men. But the other part of it is chivalry, that Victorian element of it, that agrees with this and expects good men to protect women–even when they need no protection.

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