Men are not only attacking women, but also attacking “the faith”

I revisited the Mustache enthusiast again.

(Matthew, the redundancy is intentional)

I persist commenting at Ruhie Dean’s place regarding the article ” Sixteen things every woman should Know how how to say to a man.”

Recently commenter Amanda wrote:

As a 23 year old Christian woman, I would like to say that it is good to be reminded of these things sometimes. I was just last week in a situation where a guy wanted to take things further than I was comfortable with and I had to say no. And it was more difficult than I thought it would be. Men aren’t the only ones who experience strong physical attraction. Even the good little church girls struggle sometimes. Yes, I am trying to put Christ at the center of my life but I am a sinful person. Sometimes I mess up. And sometimes I need to be reminded to stand up for myself and my faith and say no.

Notice how she says she needs to stand up for HERSELF, and her faith. The man’s sexual escalation is somehow an attack on her, something foist on her by him. With each garment that hits the floor, the requisite ramp up is him dragging her along. Apparently.

That’s what the language she used is designed to do, emotionally. It avoids any contact between her moral accountability and events she participates in by her own volition.

She has to defend her faith? Defending one’s faith is apologetics among other things. Not having sex before marriage is not an act of defending one’s faith. But it does keep the focus off her, and her morals, and her choices.

I responded there with a hasty comment:

As a 23 year old Christian woman, I would like to say that it is good to be reminded of these things sometimes. I was just last week in a situation where a guy wanted to take things further than I was comfortable with and I had to say no. And it was more difficult than I thought it would be. Men aren’t the only ones who experience strong physical attraction. Even the good little church girls struggle sometimes. Yes, I am trying to put Christ at the center of my life but I am a sinful person. Sometimes I mess up. And sometimes I need to be reminded to stand up for myself and my faith and say no.

– See more at: http://ruthiedean.com/2013/10/21/16-things-every-woman-should-know-how-to-say-to-a-man/#comment-9130

This is a sincere question, not snark. When you are a Christian, you have adopted a certain moral code. Christians can differ on some fringe areas, that’s not the point. Whatever YOUR code is, sexuality is not something that we encounter or think about infrequently. If this was a question about what to do if you find a briefcase of money on the street…..OK…..maybe we do not carry around all the arguments and ideas and thoughts and could use a refresher.
But on sexuality, why in the world would a woman even need to see an article like this? Why must she be reminded what she can say to a man? See, that’s why the focus is totally messed up. Remind women of their moral code…THAT is what fails. Then it does not matter if she has a handy list of things she “can” say to a man. She just says or does whatever she needs to do to stay true to her morals.
This list therefore has little utility, and its an emotionally derived sort of rationalization for women by women to even have this dialog. Whether overt or intended this puts the onus on the man. The list is really, how to influence the moral code of the man. And whats implied therefore is “because women’s often fail”….no way you could say that because thats bold in your face accountability to women at women, and I challenge any women to show me one example of the church holding women to account for clear cut moral issues like sex, marriage, and divorce….in a concise and unequivocal way.
At the very least women should feel insulted by lists like this. If you, collectively, want women to have more and more respect from men, then stop with things like this. It assumes a woman has little or no moral agency and needs simple lists to ground her faith based morals. Do we not get reminded of sexual morality in general terms from church and bible studies and such?

It occurred (not for the fist time) to me that the fullness of evangelical feminist effect can be seen in nearly all, if not all dialog between churchians about everyday life. While i knew that already, it also occurred to me that we bloggers can sit here day in and out and point out the language twisting and even attempt to explain how it assuages emotions and can be intentional or reflexive because women are steeped in it, etc. but, like whack-a-mole, there are just too many clever ways around each and every topic. Her comment, where it first hit me shallow and caused me to respond, after parsing it it hit me deeply. Sadly.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Men are not only attacking women, but also attacking “the faith”

  1. Sounds like Amanda is subject to vicissitudes of self-esteem/self-hatred according to the lunar phase. I’d be interested to see her reaction to having that pointed out to her.

  2. Empath:
    “Why in the world would a woman even need to see an article like this?”

    It reminds me of the so-called ‘Three-Date Rule’ in pop culture. The idea is that it’s appropriate for women to have sex—but only on or after the third date.

    Think about that: who else but frigid American women would NEED a schedule for sex? They need lists like this too. Without any real feelings of love or respect for men; they need instruction manuals, so they can go through the pretenses of a relationship in which they have absolutely no emotional bond whatsoever.

    A few years ago, femiservative Dr. Laura Schlessinger published a similar manual titled ‘The Proper Care and Feeeding of Husbands.’ The title alone sounds like a Department of Agriculture brochure on raising livestock. But that’s how women view all men (as pigs).

  3. It would be interesting to hear Ms. Amanda explain just what this guy wanted to do that ‘took things further than she was comfortable with.’ My intuition tells me this probably wasn’t much more than wanting to buy her lunch.

    “Men aren’t the only ones who experience strong physical attraction”

    The difference is, men usually experience it toward the opposite sex.

    “Even good little church girls struggle sometimes.” (Struggle with frigidity, she means). “And I need to be reminded to stand up for myself…” BINGO! Empath was right: it’s all about putting down the man and using ‘faith’ as an excuse to do it.

  4. In the act of conventional sex, the man does literally, physically, and geometrically attack the woman. He penetrates her. Of course, the woman sometimes implicitly motivates this attack by dressing or acting in a sexual way, and I find it disgusting that many slutty women refuse to take responsibility for such behavior. (Of course, a man can tempt a woman to, but it’s physically difficult for a woman to force her body onto a man’s genitals.)

    Refraining from having sex before marriage is surely a sign of one’s faith. Your faith is the philosophy and principles by which you live. What else would you consider “faith” to mean?

  5. Number 2: Who demands that a man “commit to me”? Isn’t that a little backwards? He offers the commitment, not the other way around.

    Numbers 4 and 5: Well, how I feel about that is on the record.

    Number 10: Doesn’t she know that this is what women do? We’re malleable that way. It’s like telling the sky to be green to tell a woman not to “morph her desires” to fit those of a man she is really into.

    Number 8: I guess it’s okay even though I (again) don’t know how it’s at all possible that all these words and phrases and lists are necessary.

    You are either a glutton for punishment or a man on a mission, Mr. Empathologism. This commentary and these women beg a lot of patience.

  6. Matthew

    Regarding your faith argument, that refraining from sex is a sign of faith. Im a little suprised because one of the things i liked about your blog was that you parsed words more deeply than most. i didn’t always agree with your conclusion, but you fixated on literal things, which i do like.

    here, yes, its a sign of one who has a faith, some faith, something from which morals are derived. But that’s not the issue. The issue is she said that the act of saying no IS TO defend the faith. Literally, that suggests there is an affront ON the faith itself. She should have said she was adhering to her morals BECAUSE of her faith…..or something similar. I do not defend my faith by choosing not to sin. It makes no sense.

    Her faith is her set of beliefs. THE faith would be the shared set of beliefs say, Christians have. Either way, neither should need defending unless someone is trying to convince them they are wrong about their beliefs. The guy wanting sex is wanting sex, his agenda has zero to do with marring her faith.

  7. I checked back over there as Amanda responded to my comment. I responded there, again. Now, i looked and my comments are gone. ONLY my responses to Amanda. My other comments generally after the post are all there.
    See, this is exactly the way it is. I can challenge the blogger, and concepts and such. But, challenging the thinking of an individual woman, and i was not mean or rude, is just not tolerated.

    Thats the second example in the last two weeks of why preachers cannot preach things to or at women.

    On another blog, written by a woman, its on my blog roll, she is a regular here, crap…cough….Elspeth’s…., I was , ahem, engaging a woman about her take on honesty and her husband. After three rounds the women said something like ” I asked my husband, he says I am right, with that i take my leave”. She. Left. She asked her husband a loaded question, he affirmed her as expected, she slammed out. That would repeat broadly in preachers challenged women. They would ask husband, “do you agree with him on sexual availability?”….uh….”why no dear, you know I’m satiated with our quarterly romp” they leave the offending church.

    So now, Ruthie decides that Amanda may be uncomfortable that a man is challenging her, so Ruthie throws up a blockage. Preacher offends a woman, a friend of that woman intervenes.

  8. They would ask husband, “do you agree with him on sexual availability?”….uh….”why no dear, you know I’m satiated with our quarterly romp” they leave the offending church.

    I asked that question once, years ago. The answer was not affirming. My emotions and ego survived the moment. That said, I do believe that men often answer correctly rather than honestly when asked a loaded question.

    I also think there is the distinct possibility that the husband may not want to be bothered with any additional drama his wife may add to his life as a result of her argument with the man on the Internet, LOL.

  9. elspeth, the issue of sexuality is sufficient to have him answer conveniently, regardless of annoyance at her agrumnt online. Seperate issues. If it was about which BBQ is best, Carolina or Memphis….yea…annoying

  10. elspeth, the issue of sexuality is sufficient to have him answer conveniently, regardless of annoyance at her agrumnt online. Seperate issues.

    Yes, I know that they are separate issues. I think both issues can come into play; the question, and the source of it. If you’re already struggling through an area, then the last thing you’d want I assume is your wife adding yet another voice into the thing, much less a strange one.

    Agreeing with this man who has made her feel so defensive (no matter what the subject matter) would just make things exponentailly worse than before.

  11. @Elspeth:
    “Agreeing with this man who has made her feel so defensive (no matter what the subject matter) would just make things exponentially worse than before.”

    That’s just got to be the crappiest position to be in.

    Husband points out a nail in his wife’s head, wife insists It’s NOT about the nail, another random guy points to the nail, sending the wife shrieking in pain (not from the nail of course!) seeking comfort from husband.
    I guess truth isn’t considered comfort to many women.

    For me, it would be uncomfortable to have my husband agree with someone who had made me defensive, but it would add weight to the fact that I’m likely in error.

    Meanwhile, it’s very possible that this suggestion of yours is correct Elspeth:
    “I also think there is the distinct possibility that the husband may not want to be bothered with any additional drama his wife may add to his life as a result of her argument with the man on the Internet, LOL.”

    A couple of months ago I was moderated/banned from a site I enjoyed commenting on as the author didn’t believe I actually exist (!), but I didn’t talk about it with my husband because of exactly the reason you’ve written Elspeth.
    It’s sort of like that cartoon where the guy’s being called to bed by his wife and he calls out sorry but there’s someone on the internet that’s wrong 🙂 🙂 🙂 That really makes me laugh and cringe!
    Someone in my family who also reads the same blogs was visiting and asked what happened and kind of joked around about the drama of it all. Even though we were having a laugh, my husband still felt protective of me and therefore annoyed that I’d be so dumb as to care about whether some random online person understood I am real. As he said, HE knows I exist, and that’s all that should matter! Obviously he’s right, and I couldn’t tell him it’s not about the nail – so I gave it up 🙂

  12. Pingback: Links and Comments #17 | The Society of Phineas

  13. For me, it would be uncomfortable to have my husband agree with someone who had made me defensive, but it would add weight to the fact that I’m likely in error.

    This is what I was alluding to, Hannah. The first, what man wants the excess drama to add to the existing drama after an Internet argument? The second issue is even bigger than the first. If he agreed with the man on the Internet and admits it, there would be heck. to. pay.

  14. Hannah:
    “…the author didn’t believe I actually exist.”

    Actually, that’s somewhat understandable (don’t worry I think you’re for real LOL). You know the way that the MSM portrays women: smart, competent, pretty and brimming over with sexual charisma and availability—doesn’t describe one American female in 100,000. It’s the same in the Manosphere. I read posts by you, Elspeth, Emma the Emo &c. I live in a metropolitan area of over 2 million people and I doubt that there are a dozen women here who think or behave anything like what women here think and believe.

    I mention Emma because she lives in Norway and has described herself often as ‘average’. In the US, she would be far above average.

    The point here is that outside of the Internet, these types of women don’t SEEM to exist anywhere else. I’m sure they do; but when I hear NAWALT, it reminds of people who say that all government officials are selfless public servants, only working for the public good, who know their business thoroughly. Sure, there are some like that—though so few it’s considerable remarkable to encounter one.

  15. I don’t think the Amandas of the world are really all that concerned with morality or faith.

    They just don’t want to catch the embarassing disease of “slut rabies”.

    Analogously to the general way some recessive genetic diseases work, this is transmitted through the male carrier but is only expressed in and by the female.

  16. @Hannah,

    “A couple of months ago I was moderated/banned from a site I enjoyed commenting on as the author didn’t believe I actually exist !”

    Sorry to hear you were banned as I have appreciated your comments. Your review/expose of Ken Nair’s book was helpful for me.

  17. Ken Nair was the force behind the genesis of Joel and Kathy Davisson. Before that he spoke to another woman’s heart and she spent years on the subject, chronicaled at http://www.hupotasso.com.
    What nair started for physical abuse set the table for all the rest that followed

  18. Eric, good point thanks, I figure it says more about the blog hostess than me that she can’t accept I exist!

    Bee thanks for your encouragement, it was much appreciated 🙂

    Empath… interesting link… wow I wish I could get paid to research all this stuff!!!!

  19. @empath,

    Why are evangelical pastors and authors (Wayne Grudem and Michael Pearl are two of many) hyper-paranoid about domestic violence by evangelical husbands? They give me the impression that they think every man in their pews is physically beating their wife seven nights a week.

  20. Females must realize that they do not need to compromise their beliefs just to get a man to like them.

    Men generally are hesitant to change their beliefs about getting laid, don’t they? They believe that females should not have a timetable for getting into his bed, and will even go so far as to say that she is trying to manipulate the guy. Wow, what a joke! It’s so sad that a woman can’t decide about her own vagina activities and when she is ready to put herself in jeopardy of pregnancy and disease without some arrogant, self absorbed man saying that she committing a sin.

    Your vagina is your vagina and if you want to be particular about who you allow to enter it, that is totally withing a woman’s rights. If men want to label women by calling them manipulative, then go right ahead. It’s sad when grown men give women ugly names for other reasons, but because she doesn’t want a man all up in her private space called a vagina, well that is just not right!

  21. What others think shouldn’t even enter into your mind. You are the only one that has to find your actions acceptable. So if you want, or don’t want, to do something you don’t have to justify your actions to anyone except yourself. As long as you can look in the mirror and like the person you see – that is all that matters. You have to live with yourself 24/7/365 so you dang-well better like who you are.

    Never let anyone tell you anything different. If they do, they are trying to sell you something. No one – other than yourself – will look out for YOU. So you need to be good at it. Correspondingly, you cannot blame others for the actions you take – take ownership of everything you do, and you won’t go wrong.

  22. LOL—re my previous comment on Joran Van der Sloot, it appears that another ‘manly alpha leader’ has decided to man up and commit to marriage:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world/charles-manson-marry-third-wife-2835946

    It’s like I keep telling these Game/PUA guys: the way to be a real ‘chick magnet’ is to be in the shadow of the gallows continually. The same advice is good for Churchians and Fathers’ Rights MRAs: If you want to be assured of being a husband and father, the worse a human being you are the better!

  23. The worse the human being the better….

    That is true and has been weighing on me lately but life is how it is and not how we want it to be

  24. Ton:
    Then things need to change. But it won’t happen when a lot of the Game crowd keeps spouting about ‘female hypergamy’ or Red Will Pill women trying to tell us all they really like ‘manly alpha leaders.’

  25. Eric, I agree with that. A stealth form of female entitlement and expectation results from those things….the game claims and the women telling us that they need the manly men leaders. Maybe I will break silence about it.

  26. Perhaps it isn’t the answer but then what is the realistic option? Going back in time does not happen

  27. I have to say, I think men should become dangerous again. As in strong and violent. Which would go along way to slicing the lack of alpha males

  28. More men are dangerous than are alpha. This is a festering problem, pressure building, a low hum of crack idling danger that has little to do with skills or strength, no correlation is all I’m saying. Look at this goofy knock out game, things like that. The divide in ideology is making more men dangerous. There are more non alpha dangerous men armed to the teeth today than there has ever been. And they know what they are doing with their weapons, I’m not referring to impulsive nuts.

  29. They are not dangerous Emp because they lack the will to exercises whatever capacity for violence they posses.

    Those doing the knock game are exercising their power, small in numbers gaining in affect. We live in a a gang culture now. That comes out in different ways depending on where you fit into the economic food chain. Men will adapt to our gang culture or be replaced

    No one is worried about addressing a beta males grievances because he does shit about it. Nothing will be done about those legitimate grievances until they make up their own version of the knock out game

  30. Ton the acting out grows more and more common. It’s on the news. Weekly. The snap. The Falling Down syndrome. The wire is pulled as tight as it can be pulled. The danger is a fraction of a foot-pound away.

  31. Ton:
    Empath is right: although to explain it more precisely, ‘the will to act’ on these aggressions has become diluted because there is a diminishing social constraint for it. Gang-banging/ghetto-white trash/rat culture/welfare culture—in some places this behavior is actually glorified as ‘the new normal’.

    While I agree with you that the males you describe are essentially cowards—they lack the one restraint passive-aggressive cowards universally feel: fear. If there are little or no consequences for being, for example, a loud-mouthed aggressive drug-dealing street scum, (but there are consequences for being the opposite, i.e. respectable); the scum lose the one thing that restrains them and begin to act even more aggressively.

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