The flaw in deti’s launch sequence

The recent talk of gaming Christian wives set me thinking.

Deti often refers to the nuclear option that he used, successfully, in order to bring his wife and family into line. In a sense that could be considered one big act of game, pulling out all stops, pulling up the bootstraps, manning up so to speak, and laying down an ultimatum. Men get a cool vicarious feeling from the notion of resting control so decisively. Scorched earth….or…..change.

Shall we play that game?

Or will so much shit hit the fan that there is no fan left?

Broderick’s fictional character turns down a game of chess and chooses the ultimate contest.

Whatever the situation, gamers would say that the husband should have been playing chess all along so that he wouldn’t need to play a game with such heavy consequences associated with it. Its a separate topic, the virtue of Christian game, but I want to mention the efficacy of same and draw some parallels.

We manosphere participants often and rightly speak to the fact that women have moral agency, and that the totality of their life experience serves to insulate them from it or even remove it from their pretty heads altogether. We suggest they need a dose of accountability. All true. But we differ sometimes on how to get there.

Christian game adherents would have that game’s essence is corrective and doles out accountability directly or indirectly. Cane, who is specious about game, offers an example of tossing his wife’s phone out the car window. Stuff like that is more a shoulder launched missile than full nuclear launch. And it may work. And the atmosphere set by consistently setting those kinds of boundaries may keep things between the ditches. Maybe.

The smaller missile and the nuclear exchange have the confidence to do them in common. And they share the potential for blow back. Here is the part that is off kilter. If we say a woman has moral agency, does she not have agency in general? With the flaws we discuss, emotional primacy, solipsism, etc., there is still a willful functioning person there who may not respond the way we think. I guess Christian game advocates would say, well that’s what separates the men from the boys of game. That is true in and of itself.

It is anathema to them to even ask, “what if?”. That line of thinking comes under heavy fire. The man must be flip and have a bit of devil-may-care to him, or she will see him as a poseur and his game will fail. So, let’s ask it here, in the safe confines of a blog post where its not a question of weakness but rather a point of discussion. I know that would invite the most strident to argue from the standpoint that game MUST have a certain sort of ideological purity, to the extent that  even having discussion like this is the top of the slippery slope to supplication to the women. Well maybe, but open the mind a little. Undo that which is one of the most frustrating aspects of game discussions… the religiosity and feed back looped discourse that so informs the subject.

Cane’s wife COULD bring to bear the fullness of the law. He could, in the extreme, have been removed from his children, so revelatory of unchecked anger and instability that it’s for the kids own good to get him sequestered. Do not deny the possibility. Equivocate in your own mind on the chances, but lets not fuss about it because it is irrelevant. This is a programing “if – then” with options. You cannot logically block one pathway. The “if” is if she chooses to.

Now lets look at Deti’s launch sequence. It was something like, if this this and that are not sorted out, and sorted out well, I will file a divorce, run up litigation of same, drain all accounts, and ruin the finances of this family maybe into the next generation. His wife chose to sort. But what if she didn’t?

The man in this mess has, as his charge, a wife and kids. Where it’s frequently stated that if a man is not leading, including correction, with no mind to his wife’s reaction, he is failing to love his wife as he is called to do. Good so far. But consider a scenario that is probably more common than we think. We regularly say women do not consider cause and effect, they do not always do the best job of thinking through every decision to its expected end. Remember the lawyer who told me women often get cold feet when the divorce they filed is coming near it final date. This is a symptom of this failure at cause and effect, an example of reacting emotionally and facing the consequences as if they were not expected.

Now consider the situation I alluded to as being common. A man knows that his wife is prone to making decisions based on emotion. She often does exactly that. She makes decisions that make her feel altruistic, or some other virtue she seeks to feel, and later there are consequences. They blind side her. This dynamic replays daily in marriages. The women makes choices, the man walks behind with a broom. The man wants the women to stop making choices that lead to work or consequences for him, for the kids, for others in general. I see this all the time…ALL THE TIME in the people I know.

So, this woman will suddenly, if Deti’s program went south, start making good choices? She would not potentially screw up more and more as a newly single mother? Would the man then STILL be cleaning up her messes because if he didn’t, they would negatively affect his kids?

Whats the right choice, if you limit the possibilities to two? 1) divorce and the resultant problems with the kids, which are statistically easy to understand or 2) keep doing what he is doing? I did not give the third choice of “learn game” for a very simple reason. I do not believe it is a magic elixir. Gamers themselves offer this truth, keep nexting until you find reception. Would that same dynamic not also apply to married women? That some are unreceptive?

Of course it does. You can have a woman that complains one day that a man is cocky and too alpha, then the next day that he needs to man up. Assuming there is game-susceptibility among all women assigns too much consistency to them, too much homogeneity. So, men stay married. They do not launch the nuke. And in the end, they sacrifice for the good of their kids. Is that not better than frying everyone in thermonuclear war?

Chess, global thermonuclear war, or quiet suffering? Don’t let the computer do the choosing.


18 thoughts on “The flaw in deti’s launch sequence

  1. I haven’t posted in a while because I was troubled by the very thing you brought up but didn’t quite know how to articulate it—and being very busy didn’t really have time to sit down and dwell on it too much, so I’m glad you wrote this.

    As a Christian, the thing that troubles me are Christ’s words—he talks in the teaching following the Last Supper in the Gospel of John about how the world rejected him first. He talks about how he fulfills the prophecies in Isaiah—and many followers turn their backs on him when he talks about being killed for the sins of humanity. In Isaiah it says “he was despised and rejected of men”.

    This troubles me, because all the rather triumphant talk never mentions any of this. It suggests that if we act like Jesus our marriages will be saved. But in fact if we look at the example of Jesus, it suggests the opposite, that we are likely to be rejected and attacked for the very virtues we practice. If we were to honestly admit that we are in fact less wise and powerful than Jesus—I don’t know anyone who walked on water lately or didn’t have to struggle to understand forgiveness, generosity and a deep understanding of faith—then we are actually more likely to fail, simply given how challenging it is to have such extraordinary faith.

    In short, it troubles me that Jesus did good, he was not budged from his moral position or his purpose, and yet was generally rejected. I think as Christian men we need to be prepared for that possibility.

  2. They do not launch the nuke. And in the end, they sacrifice for the good of their kids. Is that not better than frying everyone in thermonuclear war?

    Chess, global thermonuclear war, or quiet suffering?

    Oh yes, because we’re so good for our kids now, right? Does goodness come from us? No. If we are good at all then it as only as vessels. Vessels are easily replaced. In fact, the Lord can just rain down upon our chlidren directly. We do not work out our children’s salvation through fear and trembling, but our own. Cane Caldo will in fact die after making a mess of things, but his children will persist…at least for awhile until they die.

    It’s a specious question.

  3. “Chess, global thermonuclear war, or quiet suffering?”

    It’s not a specious question. The answer is simply, ‘yes.’ I expect that Empath is trying to be circumspect instead of dogmatic. I have needed and used all three:
    *** Occasionally, I pull out all of the stops, holding the line against rebellion. (The Nuclear Option.) No other solution would have worked.
    *** I always teach and exhort giving examples for the kids to follow. (The Chess Option.) the more they listen and obey, the less they suffer — and I don’t mean at my hands. Life handles that task.
    *** When I see that my guidance is rejected, I might have to leave the matter with the Lord. (The Suffering Option — and Prayer, of course.) I don’t always have the force to ensure compliance, and on those occasions, it comes down to faith; trusting that there will be forgiveness and mercy because they don’t realize what they’re doing.

    As far as “working out our salvation” or anyone else’s, don’t blur the line between “sovereign grace” and “man’s responsibility.” Grace is grace. Responsibility is responsibility. I can’t save my kids at all, but I DO have an impact on them in the sight of God. Claiming otherwise is specious.

  4. Important clarification: I can’t save my kids *souls* at all, but I DO have an impact on them in the sight *and government* of God.

    The omission changes the meaning, significantly. (Scriptural references available if anyone needs or wants them.) Pardon my oversight.

  5. Right Cane. No reason to even weigh any choices like this, its all in God’s hands.
    Really, I made no mention of a parent working out a kids salvation. I didn’t even have it in mind.
    I would mention that a man would not want a string of ONS’s paraded in front of his kids. A man would not want children left with less than suitable caregivers/babysitters so the ex wife can go do things. A man would not want to have kids relegated to all day care so that the women can work because she is now a single mom. A man would not want his kids to make a major decline in living standards, this is NOT a nod to materialism, I’m talking about a safe neighborhood and basic stuff (basic in the first world…of course) A man doesn’t want a step daddy living with kids. A man doesnt want kids growing up with a skewed gender influence in that they are with women or a woman all day and night and see a man a few days a month, this being the best case that she has no new BF or husband.

    Either one of us misunderstood the other or you are wrong.

    Similar rationale to the frivorcing mother….that.

  6. Alan, you are on the right track as far as my intent. Great comments. I have run into this a lot, where dogma is expressed as what could be considered even a form of spiritual futility, and I fail to see the utility of it. The response would be that I shouldnt be seeking utility, and it goes round and round.
    Your “mans responsibility vs sovereign grace” is spot on. Im on about the former.
    I cannot “save” my kids
    But i can recognize that kids whose parents divorce are statistically more likely to fall into X,Y,and Z, and include that in the measure of my choices. That’s what I am talking about men doing, and saying that men are doing that in large measure.
    To say that its in God’s hands is true, but to somehow use that to assuage my own responsibility would be a mistake.
    I noted you wrote mostly about kids, where I was on about wives more. I suspect that was just your working example, not a misunderstanding of my intent.

    Sojourner, you bet, it heavy and can be discouraging. It also speaks straight into, again, this about Christian game. If God is good/ Jesus Christ is good….then….if Christian game is good, shall we link all the above? My point is that Jesus shows that even perfection is not compelling enough. Therefore, where does game then fit? Is it better than perfection? If it is good (game) and it works…..whats up? How can that be squared?

  7. Donel
    Could be that the agency is different. More likely they are uniquely equipped, do to a female proclivity, to bend morality in different areas and in different ways than the proclivities of men have us doing

  8. Empath,

    Yep. I just focused on kids as a simpler example for grace v. responsibility. The family unit (including a wife) is generally a scaled up version.

    The conversation about a woman’s “agency” is emotionally charged and better addressed after getting the underlying principles in order. It rests upon a solid grasp of sovereign grace and man’s responsibility. Otherwise, it goes off the rails in no time at all.

    The two closely related subjects of “responsibility” and “agency” often collide in discussions about household baptism. Those debates can get ugly, real fast, so I wanted to stick with one — ahem — topic at a time. We’ll see how far it goes…

  9. Empath Asked:

    They do not launch the nuke. And in the end, they sacrifice for the good of their kids. Is that not better than frying everyone in thermonuclear war?</blockquote?

    Alan K said:

    The answer is simply, ‘yes.’ I expect that Empath is trying to be circumspect instead of dogmatic. I have needed and used all three:

    Those are incompatible.

    All three options may each be the right thing to do in a given situation. Agreed.

    I do not agree that (what you’re calling) dogma is spiritual futility. I do see how some DO, though.

    But i can recognize that kids whose parents divorce are statistically more likely to fall into X,Y,and Z, and include that in the measure of my choices. That’s what I am talking about men doing, and saying that men are doing that in large measure.
    To say that its in God’s hands is true, but to somehow use that to assuage my own responsibility would be a mistake.

    It’s simply not true that a parent’s divorce, or a bad environment is responsible for a child’s divorce or bad behavior. The sins of the father are not passed on.

    Jeremiah 31:

    27 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord. 29 “In those days people will no longer say,

    ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
    and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

    30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.

    Those days have been here for a long time.

    Ezekiel 18:

    1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

    “‘The parents eat sour grapes,
    and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

    3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.

    Anyways, I’m sure I’m misunderstanding your overall intent, and I don’t think it’s terribly important I figure it out today. Carry on.

  10. It’s simply not true that a parent’s divorce, or a bad environment is responsible for a child’s divorce or bad behavior

    Cane….you’re adding the word “responsible” into the mix. I didn’t suggest spiritual culpability whatsoever, something that would be sins of the father. Not it at all.
    I stated the odds for dysfunction go up.

  11. “It’s simply not true that a parent’s divorce, or a bad environment is responsible for a child’s divorce or bad behavior”

    I would say that the temptation to sin increases- families often have similar character flaws and face similar temptations. It is easy to then say to yourself that a certain sin isn’t so bad… so-and-so did it and they look happy enough. A parent’s divorce might be responsible for increasing a child’s temptation to sin, but nothing can force another person to sin.

  12. Empath, this is one of the things I wrestled with when first contemplating the red-pill back on CF. My recent post on Dalrock hints at what I think of this. If the woman is riding roughshod over the husband, the “Church” and the clear teaching of the Bible, I think that the husband is obligated by his faith to take measures. One of the problems I see is that when men are saddled with the full burden of “making mom happy” the launch codes don’t rally reside with the husband at all. Taking ANY measure can be seen as a threat to the status quo which could ultimately see him frog-marched out of his own house with a restraining order to back it up.

    I think that in order to follow a corrective path a husband needs to weigh that cost. Is escalation going to lead to thermonuclear war? Do I have any choice? How can I reset the framework of leadership with being seen as escalating? How can I win my wife by understanding her psychology and avoiding the Cuban Missile Crisis in order to save my marriage.

    Having said all of that I think that a bald ultimatum is generally a bad form of escalation and as a result not a strong leadership move. It is really a sign of an extreme situation that is broadcasting to everyone that dad/husband is not very much in control. It’s hard for our wives to respect THAT.

  13. All great points IAL, do you have any reconciled thoughts as to a resolution? The dilemma you’ve well defined. Sure, he must act. I hope I was not implying he just be passive and live and let live. If anything was implied it was that he ends up with the old cliche….choose your battles…..which is what some men do, including me. In fact I’m willing to wager that even the most stalwart men who seem in their online personas to have utter control of life and family, have actually chosen their battles. Where that line is may differ. This is no nod to spiritual compromise. Its about the minutia of daily life. These minutia can be cumulative, and like a slow fuse blow the thermonuclear device accidentally, or surprisingly.

    I want to add, I hope if Deti reads this I did not seem to be telling him he made the wrong choice. If the results are what he says they are, then he did not make the wrong one. I just wanted to highlight the danger.

    Yes Ellie, the temptation increases. A sense of hopelessness ensues. Ive seen the numbers about kids drifting away from faith, and we know the numbers about kids falling into sin patterns. I am one of the numbers also. I’m not suggesting I will stand in the judgement of God about my kids choices. I’m suggesting I will stand in judgement about MY choices. And if Ive helped my kids stumble, I am responsible for that, like stumbling a brother.

  14. To my mind E it all comes down to motive. If my goal and intention is to make Jesus Christ the Lord of my marriage then EVERYTHING I do is in service and obedience to Him. Since we are to love the Lord our God with all of our strength love for are family becomes a reflection of our love for Him, a byproduct. This is really the conversion, the paradigm shift that I don’t think that most people who claim to be in Christ have made, rather they have simply Christianized the world’s model. The reason to turn to mutually assured destruction is not because it’s our own “good idea” it is out of obedience to God, then if He makes the call He is responsible for the outcome. If we are operating out of our own ego and pride we are putting ourselves in opposition to Him and we are doomed to answer for our actions and our poor leadership. Everything, even our leadership as husbands comes down to abiding in Him, being hidden in Christ:

    Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
    (2Jn 1:9)

    1 John 5 is a good chapter explaining this relationship with Christ and how being dependent on Him takes the burden off of the husband and lays it on God’s able shoulders.

    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)

    Simple to the point of foolishness.

  15. “He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.” – from the novel Dune

    It’s a sad commentary on modern marriage, but true–if a husband isn’t willing (regardless of the circumstances) to end the marriage then he will be under the control of his spouse.

  16. Given the weapons that society, the “church” and the government have given wives to destroy marriages I would say they are getting the upper hand.. I think it comes down to allies, if it is me vs. wife/state/church I lose. If it is God/me vs. wife/state/church we have a fighting chance. The reason that feminists have made such in-roads into destroying marriage is that men forgot this and are more dependent on the social order than they were or are on God.

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