tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41484343544068947302023-11-16T04:10:00.836-08:00Masculine by DesignUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-3387443831893805532018-05-18T16:44:00.001-07:002018-05-18T16:44:27.342-07:00Incels and the N-Word<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ7FEiac3eOpLtBevfEvvGx9Z9_cGLL-MlDPLGD8hHBFWu1grpEci2xqHx6DozQXVJwGeKnwFDcFba6X0BWFGHlde1BRIVVVv9Fm_TlXAPw_8USvFzJVxjQp9t6y07IRlIpZuG8fFTMsM/s1600/gg3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="630" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ7FEiac3eOpLtBevfEvvGx9Z9_cGLL-MlDPLGD8hHBFWu1grpEci2xqHx6DozQXVJwGeKnwFDcFba6X0BWFGHlde1BRIVVVv9Fm_TlXAPw_8USvFzJVxjQp9t6y07IRlIpZuG8fFTMsM/s200/gg3.gif" width="200" /></a></div>
The term incel has a lot in common with the N-word, because while it has seemingly benign definition (a black person), it also has a <b>purpose</b>--to humiliate, degrade, and other a group of people. The term incel is now also being used with the same purpose--to humiliate, degrade, and other a group of people.<br />
<br />
GamerGate was the first major loss for feminism and SJWs in the culture wars. Who did feminist believe was behind GamerGate and handed them this loss? They stereotyped them as: nerds, men who lived in their mom's basement, neck-beards, failures to launch, game-boys, or just plain old losers. This stereotype was far from true (for one, many GamerGate supporters were female), but it is the stereotype feminist had of their enemy.<br />
<br />
And, make no mistake, feminist did consider this group of men enemies. Their defeat at the hands of these men has stuck in their craw ever since. The have never let go of it, and still want revenge. In the word incel they think they have a vehicle.<br />
<br />
The <b>definition</b> of incel seems benign (involuntary celibate), but the word has a sinister <b>purpose</b>:<b> </b>to humiliate, degrade, and other a group of people. With othering being the most sinister purpose of all--to separate these men from society and make them untouchables. Consider former Reddit CEO Ellen K. Pao's tweet:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
CEOs of big tech companies: You almost certainly have incels as employees. What are you going to do about it?</blockquote>
It is a not so thinly veiled attempt to have these men fired from their jobs and make them outcasts--to <b>other</b> them.<br />
<br />
Like the N-word, the word incel has no place in society. Rather than argue over its definition's accuracy, we should reject it outright, because its purpose is evil.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-23621984006072090612017-02-28T17:45:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:40:20.246-08:00Who is Discouraging Women From STEM Careers? Part 2 - Stay at HomesIn my previous post on this subject<sup>4</sup>, I showed that if you went by personality type, STEM jobs would be: 70% male and 30% female. That's if all other things were equal, but they aren't equal.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>
29% of women with children are stay at home moms<sup>1</sup>, but according to a Forbes survey:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>
<div>
Combine that with this info about female Harvard grads:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A 2001 survey of Harvard Business School graduates found that 31 percent of the women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 who answered the survey worked only part time or on contract, and another 31 percent did not work at all...<sup>3</sup></blockquote>
<div>
That's right, a staggering 62% of Harvard female grads either end up working part time or not at all. Why such a higher percentage than the rest of the population? Because, they can afford it. Just as birds of a feather flock together, Ivy League educated women (with high earning potential) tend to marry Ivy League educated men (with high earning potential).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
84% of working women would do likewise...if they could afford it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
STEM women are no different, they too would prefer to quit working...if they could afford it. And they can, because like Harvard female grads, STEM females tend to marry men with similar earning potential (which is to say, a high earning potential, as STEM is a high paying field). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What percentage of STEM personality type females end up choosing to quit working? I don't have a hard number, but it is probably somewhere between the general population's 29% and Harvard's 62% number. Given they are more likely to have the financial means, I'd guess it's closer to the Harvard number.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For discussion's sake, let's split the difference and make it 45%, and to be conservative we'll drop that down to 40%. So, if 40% of STEM females eventually quit work, the makeup of STEM workers should be:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
80% Male<br />
20% Female</blockquote>
<div>
Who's discouraging women from STEM careers? The two biggest culprits so far seem to be women's personality types and women's life choices. In other words--women.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
1 http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/<br />
<br />
2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/#48ced360623a<br />
<br />
3 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/us/many-women-at-elite-colleges-set-career-path-to-motherhood.html?_r=0<br />
<br />
4 http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2014/03/discouraging-women-from-entering-stem.htmlUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-59319754676991324792017-01-05T13:33:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:40:48.630-08:00Adult Women Have the Physical Strength of a 13 Year Old BoyToday, soon to be ex-President Obama, in an effort to promote women on the front lines in the military, stated that women are just as strong as men. And, people are publicly agreeing with him. Are they stuck in political correctness or have they never actually thought about it?<br />
<br />
Let's think about it. An apples-to-apples comparison would be track and field events. Same playing field, same events, same equipment (for the most part*).<br />
<br /><a name='more'></a>
For adults, I used the records of the University of Chicago track team. I compared the women's numbers to men of various ages found that the best match is with 13 year old boys. That's right, the typical college age woman has the physical ability of a 13 year old boy.<br />
<br />
The numbers below are from the Harrisburg South Middle School's 8th grade boys track records, and are pretty typical for boys of that age.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinRgUzSrwgEpocE3J2-EVhaD0fQGueVmAWzMC-UT8i0A9Zs9U_cyj0NeW_hKZz7m4u2N3QkMC7YEutgjswXJDTU6FcxoyOEGCrxs3G89HkIAtnGyS9OTRGVkQXLoYZrxR_-r6LSqaNYxE/s1600/track.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinRgUzSrwgEpocE3J2-EVhaD0fQGueVmAWzMC-UT8i0A9Zs9U_cyj0NeW_hKZz7m4u2N3QkMC7YEutgjswXJDTU6FcxoyOEGCrxs3G89HkIAtnGyS9OTRGVkQXLoYZrxR_-r6LSqaNYxE/s640/track.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The comparison gets even worse the older the boys get. Boy's high school track numbers are routinely better than the women's Olympic records in those events. Florence Griffith-Joyner, for all her success in the Olympics, would be an also-ran on many boy's high school track teams.<br />
<br />
If elite female Olympic athletes (that have had the best training possible) would have trouble competing physically with generic high school boys, how can we expect the typical woman to physically compete with men (including the enemy's men) in the military?<br />
<br />
We can't and they won't. No more than a 13 year old boy would be able to physically compete with a grown man in the military.<br />
<br />
If anyone suggested that we should induct 13 year old boys into the military and put them on the front lines, they would be laughed out of the room. Yet, isn't that what President Obama is suggesting? That we should induct someone with the physical ability of a 13 year old boy--an 8th grader--and put them in combat situations. Situations where their lack of physical strength will result in death--their own, their fellow soldiers, or both.<br />
<br />
Women are physically weaker than men. Not by a little bit, but by a lot. It's not good or bad; it's just the way it is. The physical rigors of combat stress even the strongest of grown men, what will they do to someone that only has the physical strength of an 8th grade boy?<br />
<br />
<br />
* The equipment used by men can be as much as twice as heavy as that used by women. Hence, I was unable to use the discus or shot put for comparison. I only used events where there was a true apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
University of Chicago Women's track stats: http://static.psbin.com/f/v/etjwvp8voq66pt/wtf-outdoor-alltime.pdf<br />
<br />
University of Chicago Men's track stats: http://static.psbin.com/s/i/x9lgyti0j1j4xn/mtf-outdoor-alltime.pdf<br />
<br />
Harrisburg South Middle School 8th grade boys track stats: http://southmiddleschool.harrisburgdistrict41-2.org/?page_id=590<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-83348532480833357632015-05-18T04:47:00.000-07:002017-03-12T07:00:18.287-07:00MGTOW vs The Dones American Christianity has its own “going their own way” movement: The Dones. They aren't done with Christianity, but they are done with the institutional church, or what is commonly known as “churchianity.”
<br />
<blockquote>
John is every pastor’s dream member. He’s a life-long believer, well-studied in the Bible, gives generously, and leads others passionately.<br />
<br />
But last year he dropped out of church. He didn’t switch to the other church down the road. He dropped out completely. His departure wasn’t the result of an ugly encounter with a staff person or another member. It wasn’t triggered by any single event.<br />
<br />
John had come to a long-considered, thoughtful decision. He said, “I’m just done. I’m done with church.”<sup>1</sup></blockquote>
<a name='more'></a>A researcher described them this way:
<br />
<blockquote>
At Group’s recent <i>Future of the Church</i> conference, sociologist Josh Packard shared some of his groundbreaking research on the Dones. He explained these de-churched were among the most dedicated and active people in their congregations. To an increasing degree, the church is losing its best.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>
Why they are leaving has variously been described in two ways: <br />
<ol>
<li>They can no longer tolerate the poor doctrine being taught from the pulpit, or they believe the modern institution of church has veered away from God's plan for his church—the body of Christ </li>
<li>They are fatigued with the routine; they don't feel they get anything out of going to church and don't feel church is relevant to them today </li>
</ol>
Here is where the MGTOW movement and The Dones movement have some similarities. When you read stories by people who are done with church, invariably the focus is on #1—doctrine and the church as the body of Christ. When you read stories by critics of The Dones, they focus on #2. Often the critics use shaming language—calling The Dones selfish, ignorant, deluded, and even lazy—in an effort to berate The Dones into returning to the institutional church.
<br />
<br />
Both MGTOW and The Dones have rational and logical reasons for their actions. Reasons they are willing to talk about and debate with others in a calm and intelligent manner. Both groups are open to fixing the problems that caused them to “go their own way.”
<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the critics of both MGTOW and The Dones either don't get it, or don't want to get it. They don't want to debate the issues and they certainly don't want to discuss the idea that they (the critics) might be part of the problem. They simply want things to go back to the way they have been.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1. <a href="https://holysoup.com/the-rise-of-the-dones/" target="_blank">https://holysoup.com/the-rise-of-the-dones/</a><br />
<br />
2. <a href="http://www.churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-articles/177144-thom-schultz-rise-of-the-done-with-church-population.html">http://www.churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-articles/177144-thom-schultz-rise-of-the-done-with-church-population.html</a> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-69782338413893516092015-02-25T05:49:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:43:36.111-08:00Another White Knight/Useful Idiot Learns a LessonVivek Wadhwa, author
of the book <i>Innovating Women</i>, has given up. He is no longer
going to be an advocate for women in engineering.
<br />
<blockquote><a name='more'></a>
I started advocating for women in
engineering in 2006 when my dean at Duke’s Pratt School of
Engineering, Kristina Johnson, made me aware of the declining numbers
of women entering the field.
<br />
<br />
Over the past few weeks, I have been
accused of financial impropriety, arrogance, insensitivity and worse.
<br />
<br />
On February 6, WNYC published a podcast
titled “Quiet, Wadhwa.” It criticized me for “taking
the oxygen out of the room” by “speaking for women.”
There were more than 11 minutes of inaccuracies and innuendo made
against me without even an attempt at fact-checking — despite
the serious nature of the charges. The vast majority of allegations
would not have passed a simple Google search. Yet I was not even
asked to comment. WNYC completely disregarded the fact that I
routinely share my media platform with women and regularly refer
journalists to women in tech.
<br />
<br />
The podcast
had referred to my attempt to have a conversation with one of my
critics through a Twitter direct message (DM) as “the hand on
the knee of social media.”
<br />
<br />
...the podcast claimed that I had a
“tendency to send a DM” and said it is “creepy when
someone goes into your DM, it is this non-consensual let’s go
over here where people can’t see you criticizing me and maybe I
can talk to you there.” They alleged that I done this to
several women and said it was like the “hand on the knee”
or an invitation to young women to “come sit on my lap.”
Many people interpreted these words to imply that I am some sort
sexual predator. For the record, I DM people — male and female
— in situations like this because I have found that
conversations out of the limelight are often far more civil and that
usually we find common ground quickly.
<br />
<br />
But I may have made the mistake of
fighting the battles of women in technology for too long... So I am
going to bow out of this debate.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>
What he finding is
that being a white knight is the feminist equivalent of being a
useful idiot.<sup>2</sup> They will take your help, but they don't
respect you, and if they can gain more points by throwing you to the
curb, they will do it in a heartbeat.
<br />
<br />
Of course, Wadhwa
was also wrong about the discrimination against women in tech. As
anyone that has ever worked in a serious tech company can tell you,
there is no discrimination against women or minorities. There is
discrimination against non-geeks.
<br />
<br />
Actually,
discrimination is the wrong word. It's more accurate to say there is
a self-selection bias. As I pointed out in an earlier post (<a href="http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2014/03/discouraging-women-from-entering-stem.html"><i>Who
is Discouraging Women From STEM Careers?</i></a>), tech is dominated
by a certain personality type. This personality type enjoys working
with technology. Other personality types are significantly
underrepresented in tech. If you were going to put labels on these
two groups, it would be geeks and non-geeks.
<br />
<br />
Geeks go into tech,
because they enjoy it. Non-geeks don't go into tech, because they
don't enjoy it. Unfortunately, the geek/non-geek personality types
are not distributed equally between men and women. The percentage of
women who could be said to have a geek personality type is in the low
single digits—less than 5 percent. The reason there are few
women in tech is because few women enjoy working in tech.
<br />
<br />
At some level, I believe most women understand this, so they look at someone like Wadhwa
not as an advocate for women, but as a man patronizing women. They
don't trust him, and why should they? They know in their gut what he
is saying isn't true, and they assume he also must know it isn't
true...or that he is an idiot. And women don't respect idiots, even
useful idiots.
<br />
<br />
This is why there is
no benefit in being a white knight. Women don't really trust you or
your motives, because they can see the duplicity in your actions. At
best, you will be seen as a useful idiot. At worse, you'll be thrown
to the dogs.
<br />
<br />
That's the story of
Vivek Wadhwa. He played the white knight, and was allowed to hang
around as one of the useful idiots. But, when it became more
beneficial to throw him to the dogs, there was no hesitation. He was
thrown to the dogs.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1
http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/23/why-i-am-stepping-out-of-the-debate-on-women-in-technology/
<br />
<br />
2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-17729444041035594212015-02-20T05:28:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:42:33.390-08:00Marie Harf, ISIS, and Alpha Bad-BoysMarie Harf is the US
State Department spokeswoman who has come under criticism for her
statements that the way to defeat ISIS isn't with force, but rather
social change—specifically to improve their economic prospects
and give them good jobs. <a href="http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-msnbcs-matthews-just-destroyed-state-dept-flak-says-terrorists-simply-need-jobs/#yvSfecKjp0lbOQGv.97">Even
Chris Matthews, who normally throws softballs at the Obama
administration, was flabbergasted</a>.
<br />
<br />
Explanations for
Harf's statement have ranged from her living in a bubble (and thus
she naively thinks the whole world is similar to the the bubble she
lives in) to a lack of core religious beliefs (and thus is unable to
comprehend how powerful a force religion can be in someone's life).
I'd like to approach this from a different angle: women's attraction
to alpha bad-boys.
<br />
<br /><a name='more'></a>
Even the most
blue-pill guy has noticed women can't resist alpha bad-boys. There
are good (and logical) reasons for this, rooted deep in our human
past (which I'm not going to elaborate on now). For the moment, all
we need to do is acknowledge that this phenomenon exists.
<br />
<br />
Part of the bad-boy
syndrome is the idea that under that bad-boy persona is really a
good-guy just waiting to come out (or be brought out by the love of a
good woman). Countless fathers have counseled their daughters to quit
dating some guy because “he's nothing but trouble,” only
to have their daughter reply “Oh Daddy, you just don't
understand him.” Actually, the dad does understand him; it's
the daughter who doesn't. It's the daughter that is seeing a
non-existent underlying good-guy persona; it is the daughter who is
attributing attributes to hmi that don't exist; it is the daughter
that incorrectly think he would become a good guy—if only the
circumstances were different.
<br />
<br />
Rather than retract
her statement, Marie Harf has doubled down. Saying that her comments
were “too nuanced” for her critics to understand. The
political equivalent of “Oh Daddy, you just don't understand
him.” Most people look at ISIS and see a group of terrorist
bent on destruction. Marie Harf sees a bunch of alpha bad-boys who,
with the right combination of love and understanding, can be turned
into the good-guys they always were inside.
<br />
<br />
The reason so many
women complain that all men are jerks, is because they keep choosing
to hook up with the alpha bad-boys (the jerks) thinking they can
reform them and release their inner good guy. This plan rarely (if
ever) works out, because there is no good-guy lurking inside. They
are what they are: bad men. Plain and simple. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-40850150444733794572015-02-19T03:45:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:44:50.280-08:00Women's "I Wish He Were Dead" Fantasy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiThyphenhyphen1ioOTj7Mf9tROfMbidLMn_AYTCRbCoVls-ZUYM26Gd3R42uq5fXuiSY9KQoPpaXX7yyeQX3EgFrbeXqoc4ZMySjg8G3bKi3s5FRayMjEoBaRq5zc9h8dKHloq-TaNNMmFEI3S457g/s1600/df.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiThyphenhyphen1ioOTj7Mf9tROfMbidLMn_AYTCRbCoVls-ZUYM26Gd3R42uq5fXuiSY9KQoPpaXX7yyeQX3EgFrbeXqoc4ZMySjg8G3bKi3s5FRayMjEoBaRq5zc9h8dKHloq-TaNNMmFEI3S457g/s1600/df.png" height="218" width="320"></a></div>
This is another
concept from Warren Farrell's <i>Why Men Are They Way They Are</i>.
Farrell noticed a theme running through a number of romance novels.
One where the heroine is flashdanced to success, and then the husband
dies. Thus, leaving the widow financially independent and free to
pursue her dreams and desires without the encumbrance of a husband.
<br />
<br /><a name='more'></a>
Farrell also found
this “I wish he were dead” fantasy in advertisements.
<br />
<blockquote>
The ad symbolizes the female
twenty-first-century dilemma. A woman's fantasy has expanded to the
point of expecting not only wealth, but enough wealth and control
over her own life to have sex on her own terms. The dilemma is that
the fantasy has expanded faster than has women's preparation to
provide it for themselves. The ad appeals to the pull between the
traditional part of many women, which wants a man to provide success,
and the independent part, which fantasizes about control over her own
sexuality, his sexuality, and even him. The traditional part of her
is so furious at him for not providing success and sweeping her away
(hence the anger in the “independent women” magazines)
that his meager gifts must be met with with her “I wish he were
dead” fantasy.</blockquote>
Does this recurring
fantasy in women's media mean women want to kill their husbands in
real life? No, but it does offer an insight. We have one advantage
over Farrell: we have 30 years of hindsight to see how this fantasy
has played out in marriage 2.0. Consider these facts about women's "I wish he were dead" fantasy:
<br />
<ol>
<li>The woman
marries a man and acquires access to his wealth</li>
<li>The man dies
(he exits her life)</li>
<li>The widow
retains his wealth</li>
<li>The widow is
now financially independent, and able to pursue her dreams and
desires without the encumbrance of a husband</li>
</ol>
Now compare this to
the “divorce fantasy” of marriage 2.0.
<br />
<ol>
<li>The woman
marries a man and acquires access to his wealth</li>
<li>The woman
divorces her husband (he exits her life)</li>
<li>The ex-wife
retains his wealth (via alimony, child support, and division of joint
property such as house, pension, stocks, and savings)</li>
<li>The ex-wife is
now financially independent, and able to pursue her dreams and
desires without the encumbrance of a husband</li>
</ol>
The male death
fantasy Farrell noted in his book, is a woman's fantasy to be rid of
her husband without consequences to herself. In fiction this can take
the form of the husband's death. In reality, the easiest route for a
woman to achieve this fantasy is to divorce her husband. The law over
the last 30 years has made it easier and easier for women to pursue
this option. Today's judicial system has enshrined women's "I wish he were dead"fantasy into divorce law. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-24528856437554648672015-02-18T06:01:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:31:26.013-08:00Flashdancing Women <div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFse7aOMKwwgGklUsJJS9NA4p0O-FM5zNzMx007-bo7bCNX8j0TGpNxT73rU-QkkICy_3caHbLE-046y39mBSfTTOWxBkOJPM-bgKnECz7YfxWmQgaGToyGZOEc0Ro-gcrt8NCalYa6NE/s1600/fdbluewater.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFse7aOMKwwgGklUsJJS9NA4p0O-FM5zNzMx007-bo7bCNX8j0TGpNxT73rU-QkkICy_3caHbLE-046y39mBSfTTOWxBkOJPM-bgKnECz7YfxWmQgaGToyGZOEc0Ro-gcrt8NCalYa6NE/s1600/fdbluewater.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Warren Farrell in
his book <i>Why Men Are The Way They Are</i> spends an entire chapter
on what he calls “The Flashdance Phenomenon.” The analogy
is based on the move <i>Flashdance</i>.
<br />
<br />
The movie is about a
twentyish woman who works as a welder by day and an exotic dancer by
night in a seedy club that is one-half step above a strip club. Her
dream is to join the ballet. The only thing holding her back is lack
of opportunity and money...plus the lifetime of ballet lessons and hard work she skipped.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisgMgVdn4y4hqJ8_NTfHbCJ_3J1k9lD7PZhKxj6ziT5hTehkeDB6d4aOVMKlxuhg4pgMy6leOPTLqnu9r6PyCfjqusgEFrFmfQjIv1mhWlbr9VD465hviSk1eFXl2o2b_IbZu7Wvt75io/s1600/auditionblue.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisgMgVdn4y4hqJ8_NTfHbCJ_3J1k9lD7PZhKxj6ziT5hTehkeDB6d4aOVMKlxuhg4pgMy6leOPTLqnu9r6PyCfjqusgEFrFmfQjIv1mhWlbr9VD465hviSk1eFXl2o2b_IbZu7Wvt75io/s1600/auditionblue.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Along comes a
wealthy man who showers her with money, gifts, and attention, and
then uses his influence to arrange an audition for her with the
ballet. When the audition arrives, it quickly becomes apparent that
she doesn't actually know much about ballet (in fact, she has
problems doing some of the basic moves), but then she breaks out into
one of her exotic dance routines from the club. The judges are so
wowed by her Paula Abduhl, hip-hop style dance routine that that they
forget everything they ever knew about ballet and sign her up.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTpdQh66pZx13ebFQXL2RNTovoPiQVAi9VICUB4Lt2PbfTMPu37iIpk2l_j8ufrFgcsHIOHfE4cBetF9CBhrcomiPPpJIbpcocDiqzU-MzeRBtjKeRg0Bsc1FlzYTek6cPHW11fh5sYfI/s1600/flashdance_hallway_blue.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTpdQh66pZx13ebFQXL2RNTovoPiQVAi9VICUB4Lt2PbfTMPu37iIpk2l_j8ufrFgcsHIOHfE4cBetF9CBhrcomiPPpJIbpcocDiqzU-MzeRBtjKeRg0Bsc1FlzYTek6cPHW11fh5sYfI/s1600/flashdance_hallway_blue.png" width="320" /></a></div>
And what of her
competition—the hallway full of ballerinas she passes on the
way into the audition? They are now yesterday's news. Their lifetime
of hard work and training is no match for our flashdancer, who is
instantly catapulted to the top not because of talent or hard work,
but simply because she is special (and associated with a powerful,
influential man).
<br />
<br />
Flashdancing is when
a woman uses a man's power and influence to achieve something she
could never achieve independently. Farrell notices that this is a
recurring fantasy for women. Akin to the Cinderella story (where a
lowly girl instantly becomes a princess due to associating with a
man), the flashdance version has one more component: the woman is
given credit for having achieved something on her own merits—even
though she hasn't.
<br />
<br />
Farrell uses an
example from the old TV show <i>Dynasty</i>. Krystal, a secretary,
marries the owner of an oil company. Does she remain a secretary? No,
she becomes the head of public relations for her husband's
multimillion dollar company. What qualifies her for this position?
She married the owner of the company. Yet in the show she is
portrayed as a woman of skill and accomplishment. Were did she gain
this skill and accomplishment? Via her marriage to her husband. His
skill and accomplishment has somehow been magically transferred to
his bride.
<br />
<br />
For a real life
example, consider Georgia Frontiere who is considered to be one of
the most important female owners in NFL history. How did a former
secretary and two-bit entertainer achieve so much? She married
Carroll Rosenbloom, the then LA Rams owner, who died in 1979 leaving
Frontiere a 70% interest in the team. Simply “being there”
was enough to have endowed Frontiere with the skills and attributes
of her late husband.
<br />
<br />
This is the
flashdance phenomenon. It could also be termed women's flashdance
fantasy. Women have long believed that marriage was a legitimate path
to success. Amul Alamuddin was flashdanced from obscurity to Barbara
Walter's “most fascinating person of the year.” Walters
said Amul Alamuddin landing George Clooney as a husband was “a
great achievement.”
<br />
<br />
Yes, women do
consider being flashdanced by a man to be an achievement—her
achievement, not his. This is also part of the flashdance fantasy,
that the rags-to-riches woman has “earned” the fame,
wealth, and power she acquired via marriage.
<br />
<br />
Mary Bono assumed
her husband Sony Bono's congressional seat after his accidental
death. What qualifications did she have? She was Sony Bono's wife.
What qualified Muriel Humphrey to assume her husband's (Hubert
Humphrey) senate seat when he died? She was his wife. Both were
flashdanced into elective office.
<br />
<br />
None of this is news
to red-pill men, but there's not a good bit of red-pill jargon to
describe it. “Marrying up” doesn't really get it, because
there's more to the flashdance phenomenon than just marrying a rich
man. There's the idea that the marriage endows the wife with all of
the attributes of the husband, be it wisdom, skill, or even
education. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-65781462284577577072015-02-17T06:12:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:45:57.759-08:00The Football Player's Dilemma<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNfXEeA4RCrcJ5dcegpKuHrmf5CcFLuHWMqBYeC0MiTqfMl4rkpTbMnGS_UdCcegEr-G6vWv-EkjlTAgQzEbQJ8PcGTw7Pi9E0uN_i_kNwey14xpUmXaZUcsKW1V29-ByqOWZ2lMuA2ug/s1600/Varsity-Blues_l.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNfXEeA4RCrcJ5dcegpKuHrmf5CcFLuHWMqBYeC0MiTqfMl4rkpTbMnGS_UdCcegEr-G6vWv-EkjlTAgQzEbQJ8PcGTw7Pi9E0uN_i_kNwey14xpUmXaZUcsKW1V29-ByqOWZ2lMuA2ug/s1600/Varsity-Blues_l.png" width="150" /></a></div>
In his book <i>Why
Men Are The Way They Are</i>, Warren Farrell doesn't use this exact
bit of jargon, but the example he uses is so clear that this phrase
jumps to mind.
<br />
<blockquote>
When a football player loses his position
on the team, he seldom sees a cheerleader run off the field saying
“Wait, I'm still cheering for you—I love your openness
and vulnerability.” He notices, instead that she cheers for his
replaceable part. He learns, on some level, that all heroes are
replaceable parts.
<br />
<br />
...He is learning, subconsciously, that
female support, nurturing, is conditional—it goes to the men on
the playing field. Therefore her support is really pressure to keep
performing.</blockquote><a name='more'></a>
Farrell calls this
maintaining your hero status. Red-pill men today call it maintaining
alpha. Both refer to the same thing: the football player's dilemma. A
man can either maintain his hero/alpha status (even when he would
prefer not to) or stop being the hero/alpha and risk losing his
woman.<br />
<br />
As Farrell states: "a jerk is often a hero who messes it up along the way."<br />
<br />
The purpose of this post is to add some jargon—a bit or shorthand—to the red-pill dictionary.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-23366076660768143472015-02-16T05:24:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:46:58.144-08:00Why Men Are The Way They Are<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVPE8iOjo3lsFciKCUE0hWje7qWaTWim_mXPmf3dwH-wFYy2NBh-nvECb4sVJ6o280Gkt5bILu0mL6UtC1fRt9o167Uicz6n-VBx9T_G2G35B9SegbJhdnFtLkYIo_8Jid9qumaIPHD2E/s1600/blue+WMATWTA+cover.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVPE8iOjo3lsFciKCUE0hWje7qWaTWim_mXPmf3dwH-wFYy2NBh-nvECb4sVJ6o280Gkt5bILu0mL6UtC1fRt9o167Uicz6n-VBx9T_G2G35B9SegbJhdnFtLkYIo_8Jid9qumaIPHD2E/s1600/blue+WMATWTA+cover.png" width="200" /></a></div>
I have recently
finished Warren Farrell's 1986<sup>1</sup> book <i>Why Men Are The
Way They Are</i>. While Farrell's later books (particularly <i>The
Myth of Male Power</i>) are more widely read, I found his this book
to have some fascinating insights.
<br />
<br />
Written 30 years
ago, Farrell had not yet (to use a modern analogy) “swallowed
the red pill.” He was still trying to reconcile his lifelong
feminist beliefs (he literally served on the board of the NYC chapter
of NOW—The National Organization for Women) with what his
research was revealing—and failing miserably.
<br />
<br /><a name='more'></a>
What he ended up
with though, was a catalog of red-pill ideas. Everything is here,
from the problems of marriage 2.0 to the female-imperative<sup>2</sup>.
Farrell doesn't use the modern jargon (the book was written 15 years
before <i>The Matrix</i>—the movie that gave us the terms
red-pill and blue-pill), but he does explain the modern concepts and
the underlying social norms.
<br />
<br />
He also has a number
of concepts that the men's red-pill movement has either missed or
failed to label.
<br />
<ul>
<li>The football
player's dilemma</li>
<li>Flashdanced</li>
<li>Women's male death fantasy</li>
<li>Success object</li>
</ul>
Those are the areas
of the book I'd like to discuss in future posts. For now, I'll simply
recommend Farrell's book as an easy to read introduction to red-pill
thinking. One that, ironically, was written for women, but that does
an excellent job of revealing the true problems men fact in life—then
and now.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1 Wikipedia lists
the publication year as 1988, but the hardback copy I have lists the
copyright date as 1986.
<br />
<br />
2 <a href="http://therationalmale.com/category/the-feminine-imperative/">The Female Imperative</a> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-17929508892483348212014-11-28T12:51:00.002-08:002017-03-05T05:33:23.447-08:00So What If He Lives In His Mom's Basement?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUaHg5r-SGMi71wCjZ8uowVa2t5tq78x-3ASy-jSLVzto1KXvUAw0RZpdKNYlBjivXkk74dth1hg5c8tg4UULVIG4FOAM9AZIC29F3zn1wvVDM5UiiUHAIk5UXaWxpqDzLOo3BGIq_zHI/s1600/blueguys.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUaHg5r-SGMi71wCjZ8uowVa2t5tq78x-3ASy-jSLVzto1KXvUAw0RZpdKNYlBjivXkk74dth1hg5c8tg4UULVIG4FOAM9AZIC29F3zn1wvVDM5UiiUHAIk5UXaWxpqDzLOo3BGIq_zHI/s1600/blueguys.png" width="320" /></a></div>
I don't buy into the stereotype of young men being lazy and refusing to grow up; choosing instead to live in their mom's basement and play video games all day. The stereotype is not as common as the detractors make it out to be, and reality is much more complicated. But, for argument's sake, let's grant for the moment that the stereotype is true. In which case, I would like to ask these men's detractors a question: <b>so what?</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><ul>
<li>Are they receiving government welfare payments to support their lifestyle? No.</li>
<li>Are these men demanding the government raise taxes on others, so they can play video games? No.</li>
<li>Are these men out robbing stores or committing other crimes? No.</li>
</ul>
<div>
So what if they aren't "contributing t o society." They aren't damaging society either. The stereotypical "slacker" works just enough hours (at a boring job) to support themselves. They may (according to your vision) be living a sub-optimal life, but it's their life. They are the ones that get to make the choice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Oh,but they are taking advantage of their parents!" you say.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have to question whether this concern for parents is sincere or simply a shaming tactic. After all, <b>nobody seems concerned that the 32% of women between 18 and 31 who live with their parents are taking advantage of them</b>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Besides, these critics of these men are not their moms, nor are they their mom's mom. Their parents are perfectly capable of deciding if they need to kick lil' Johnny out of the house for his own good. Yet, they majority don't. Why? Some feel they are helping their child in tough times; some (particularly single moms) like having a man around the house to help with "man chores" and provide security; and some don't see the point forcing a youth out on their own (and into financial debt) before it is required.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Whatever the reason, these parents don't need to justify their decision to allow their adult offspring (male OR female) to live at home to anyone. Nobody is alleging that their children are using threats or violence to force their parents to allow them to live at home. Their parents are making this decision voluntarily for their own reasons. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You disagree with the parent's decision? So what, it's a free country and it's their decision to make, not yours. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The fact that these men are living their life in a way their critics disagree with--that they are refusing to "man up" and become their critic's definition of a real man--is meaningless. It's their life to live, and they aren't damaging anyone but themselves (if that). To quote the old country song "why don't you mind your own business, and then you won't be minding mine."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/07/SDT-millennials-living-with-parents-07-2013.pdf" target="_blank">* stats on millenials living at home</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-25762968140092586912014-03-14T14:53:00.001-07:002017-03-05T06:10:35.244-08:00Who is Discouraging Women From STEM Careers?I was reading an
article at Matt Walsh's blog<sup>1</sup> where he pointed out that
women don't have it worse than men. One of the comments<sup>2</sup>
caught my eye:
<br />
<blockquote>
However,
one thing about the .77 dollar argument that bears investigation is
why women are underrepresented in the STEM professions, which tend to
be the highest-paying professions. Studies have consistently revealed
that girls are discouraged in math and science classrooms. </blockquote>
Having worked in a
STEM field (computer programming) for over a quarter of a century, I
found the idea that girls are discouraged from entering STEM fields
to be curious. It certainly didn't line up with my experience in the industry. Schools have been pushing girls into math and science,
not discouraging them. In my experience technology companies have
been bending over backwards and jumping through hoops to get more
women into IT (information technology). From programs aimed at
getting high school students involved in technology to hiring
decisions, there has always been a blunt, out-in-the-open emphasis on
getting more women into IT.
<br />
<br />
So, if it's not “the
patriarchy” pushing women down and denying them a chance to
enter technology fields, what does account for women being
underrepresented in technology fields? After a little research into
personality types and career fields, I think I found the answer.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The Myers-Briggs<sup>3</sup>
personality test places people into 16 personality type categories.
One reasearcher<sup>4</sup> surveyed computer programmers to
determine what personality types were represented. The chart below
compares the personality types of the general population to the
personality types of working programmers. Take ISFJ as an example.
14% of people have this personality type, but only 2% of programmers
have this personality type. On the other hand, while 12% of people
have a ISTJ personality type, 24% of programmers are an ISTJ.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFk8CflSvNXqkXF2RNKNOPKSlVn8H_pYf4s9uCewg1NFYk4g94rPZiGDyCdGz2H-raynet_DyVZtNjPK6M4yOmMo55rZ70XgS_ZtC2wwazKkU-NyxlKu0m-gY3WdhNwTQtqj27WYNI8lg/s1600/mb-all.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFk8CflSvNXqkXF2RNKNOPKSlVn8H_pYf4s9uCewg1NFYk4g94rPZiGDyCdGz2H-raynet_DyVZtNjPK6M4yOmMo55rZ70XgS_ZtC2wwazKkU-NyxlKu0m-gY3WdhNwTQtqj27WYNI8lg/s1600/mb-all.png" width="564" /></a></div>
<br />
The chart below
looks at the numbers slightly differently. The number represents how
common the personality types is among programmers compared to how
common it is in the general population. Anything to the left of the
vertical dashed line is underrepresented among programmers; anything
to the right is overrepresented.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRJpxgsR75faQ3eZ4y-80jvXjAwPQvilEzPwpj2unT5Si0duX_Ad8Ch2WUxssYauheAZtq1PidyExdZ1XBKZBcfo_qcYX0N31k1oaj-CjCChebYNK_-pvzLTGEmQ707Wg48_b8J0gl_Qk/s1600/mb-likely.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="632" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRJpxgsR75faQ3eZ4y-80jvXjAwPQvilEzPwpj2unT5Si0duX_Ad8Ch2WUxssYauheAZtq1PidyExdZ1XBKZBcfo_qcYX0N31k1oaj-CjCChebYNK_-pvzLTGEmQ707Wg48_b8J0gl_Qk/s1600/mb-likely.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Take INTJ as an
example. 2% of the general population are this type, but 7% of
programmers are this type. Meaning, INTJs are 3.50 times as common
among programmers than among the general population. On the other
hand, the 0.50 number associate with INFPs means there are only ½
as many programmer INFPs compared to the general population.
<br />
<br />
Notice the pattern
(I drew a horizontal dotted line to emphasize it)? Every
overrepresented personality type has a T in the third position, and
every underrepresented personality type has a F in the third
position. According to Myers-Briggs, this is the indicator for
decision making. T stands for thinking and means when making
decisions you will first look at logic and consistency. F stands for
feeling and means when making decisions you first look at people and
special circumstances.
<br />
<br />
T decision makers
have a bent towards programming, F decision makers do not. The
association is so strong, that 81% of programmers have a T
personality type, despite the fact that only 40% of the general
population does.
<br />
<br />
Breaking down the
decision makers personality type (T or F) by gender<sup>5</sup>
explains why women are underrepresented among programmers.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlaLwvuCB0gYPzIaUJW8JsKScBvpfvfJzcQP4PdVhjUQUlN8IErn70_0YXw4AEoOKbCZgVQNJs6iY7Usc4D7onjgNBlFcG2Qu4lEODjphSk4Ke4jt-ijbZwWqF86XmXe8luZubXs3PM-U/s1600/mb-gender.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlaLwvuCB0gYPzIaUJW8JsKScBvpfvfJzcQP4PdVhjUQUlN8IErn70_0YXw4AEoOKbCZgVQNJs6iY7Usc4D7onjgNBlFcG2Qu4lEODjphSk4Ke4jt-ijbZwWqF86XmXe8luZubXs3PM-U/s1600/mb-gender.png" width="576" /></a></div>
<br />
Like the earlier
chart, I placed a horizontal dotted line to separate the T and F
decision personality types. It's easy to see that in every T
personality type men outnumber women, and in every F personality type
women outnumber men. When you summarize the T numbers it becomes even
clearer.
<br />
<blockquote>
Percentage of men and women with T
personality attribute:
<br />
<br />
Men: 57%<br />
Women: 24%</blockquote>
If STEM jobs were filled based solely on personality type, they would be 70% male and 30% female. Unfortunately, 30% is probably the ceiling for female software engineers. Unless you would enjoy doing math problems all day with minimal human interaction, then you are not cut out to be a programmer. Personality matters when it comes to STEM.<br />
<br />
Are women being
discouraged from entering STEM fields? No. The more likely reason women don't enter STEM fields as often as
men is that their base personality type makes STEM fields less
appealing to them than other choices. Women aren't being prevented
from entering STEM fields, they are simply choosing not to enter
them, and instead are choosing to enter career fields more in line
with their personality type.<br />
<br />
<br />
Read part 2: <a href="http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2017/02/who-is-discouraging-women-from-stem.html" target="_blank">Who is Discouraging Women From STEM Careers? Part 2 - Stay at Homes</a><br />
<br />
<br />
1
<a href="http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/13/an-open-letter-to-liberal-feminists-girls-dont-have-it-any-worse-than-boys/comment-page-5/#comment-143835">http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/13/an-open-letter-to-liberal-feminists-girls-dont-have-it-any-worse-than-boys/comment-page-5/#comment-143835</a>
<br />
<br />
2
<a href="http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/13/an-open-letter-to-liberal-feminists-girls-dont-have-it-any-worse-than-boys/comment-page-5/#comment-143458">http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/13/an-open-letter-to-liberal-feminists-girls-dont-have-it-any-worse-than-boys/comment-page-5/#comment-143458</a>
<br />
<br />
3
<a href="http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/">http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/</a>
<br />
<br />
4
<a href="http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=electricalpub">http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=electricalpub</a>
<br />
<br />
5
<a href="http://www.knowyourtype.com/myers-briggs-percentages/">http://www.knowyourtype.com/myers-briggs-percentages/</a>
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-80442282881636571882014-02-28T13:45:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:34:21.561-08:00Overt Confidence is the Alpha KeyWhich of the
following people would you be most likely to follow:
<br />
<ol>
<li>An inept man
who was outwardly overconfident in his abilities</li>
<li>A competent man
who was humble about his abilities
</li>
</ol>
I'm sure most people
picked #2. We all like to think we would make the smart choice, but
according to research done by Cameron Anderson<sup>2</sup> the choice
most people make is #1. And it's not even close, the overwhelming
majority of people prefered the inept overconfident guy.
<br />
<blockquote>
<a name='more'></a>“Our
studies found that overconfidence helped people attain social status.
People who believed they were better than others, even when they
weren’t, were given a higher place in the social ladder. And
the motive to attain higher social status thus spurred
overconfidence,” said Anderson.
<br />
<br />
“ In
organizations, people are very easily swayed by others’
confidence even when that confidence is unjustified,” Anderson
said. “Displays of confidence are given an inordinate amount of
weight.”
<br />
<br />
Researchers
say these “alphas” of the group have more clout and
prestige than other members. Anderson believes the new findings are
important because they help shed light on a longstanding puzzle: why
overconfidence is so common, in spite of its risks. <sup> 1 </sup> </blockquote>
Why is
overconfidence so common? Because it works. According to the Anderson
studies
there seems to be absolutely
no
penalty for displays of overconfidence—none, zero, nada.
<br />
<ul>
<li>Coworkers
looked up <b>more</b>
to overconfident coworkers </li>
<li>Women
found overconfident men <b>more</b>
desirable </li>
<li>Bosses
put <b>more</b>
trust in
overconfident
employees </li>
</ul>
All
allocated a greater level of competence to the person who came across
as confident than to others who displayed less confidence (even if
the less confident person actually was more competent). And
what did people think personally of their overconfident peers?
<br />
<blockquote>
Group
members did not think of their high status peers as overconfident,
but simply that <b>they
were terrific</b>.<sup>3</sup>
</blockquote>
Displays
of confidence provide social clues to others, and they don't have to
be that obvious or over the top.
<br />
<blockquote>
Individuals’ competence resides
within them and is hidden from observers, making it difficult for
people to accurately gauge each other’s true competence levels.
People are often forced to allocate power based on what they believe
each other’s competence to be. In turn, assessments of
competence tend to be based on superficial cues such as a person’s
nonverbal behavior, attire, or style of speaking. For example,
individuals are perceived to be more competent when they appear more
confident in their opinions, exhibit more comfort with a task, speak
in a louder voice, and use more emphatic gestures when making their
point.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>
The question we
should be asking is: why are displays of diffidence so common, given the social and monetary penalties
men pay for acting in such a manner? There's a reason the words
“confident winner” and “unconfident loser”
just seem to go together. If you fail to display confidence you will
be perceived as a loser; if you display confidence you will be
perceived as a winner. I won't go so far as to say a person's skill
set is meaningless, but it is clear that if you aren't publicly
confident about your ability, nobody else will be either.
<br />
<br />
A few practical
rules seem to emerge from Anderson's work:
<br />
<ol>
<li>People will
underestimate the ability of a person who acts in a diffident manner</li>
<li>People will
overestimate the ability of a person who acts in a confident manner</li>
<li>When in doubt
about how to act, lean towards displaying confidence, otherwise you
risk people underestimating your actual abilities.
</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1 <a href="http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/08/14/overconfidence-drives-social-status-even-when-unfounded/43071.html">http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/08/14/overconfidence-drives-social-status-even-when-unfounded/43071.html</a>
<br />
<br />
2 <a href="http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/filemgr?file_id=7211737">http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/filemgr?file_id=7211737</a>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mors.haas.berkeley.edu/CAnderson%20Pilot%20Site/Research/draft%20100518%20(3).pdf">http://mors.haas.berkeley.edu/CAnderson%20Pilot%20Site/Research/draft%20100518%20(3).pdf</a>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/papers/anderson/status%20enhancement%20account%20of%20overconfidence.pdf">http://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/papers/anderson/status%20enhancement%20account%20of%20overconfidence.pdf</a>
<br />
<br />
3 <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9474973/Key-to-career-success-is-confidence-not-talent.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9474973/Key-to-career-success-is-confidence-not-talent.html</a>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-20504753366842713162014-02-13T09:32:00.000-08:002014-02-13T09:32:04.640-08:00Is the Cube Farm the Meaning of Life?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilAeq4lA87Q_TBD0fYuT_7jbf7WQBZUEFk7VCL49X8VCfSDkfKoPKhDNFPC3KrzS8fnnvup-FhTkmMnYRYp-e5S7-ppPTogg1iLzx2IEngyA4dgAg0v5DaRPIiC5QHjx4Ajcio3k6cQu4/s1600/cubeblue.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilAeq4lA87Q_TBD0fYuT_7jbf7WQBZUEFk7VCL49X8VCfSDkfKoPKhDNFPC3KrzS8fnnvup-FhTkmMnYRYp-e5S7-ppPTogg1iLzx2IEngyA4dgAg0v5DaRPIiC5QHjx4Ajcio3k6cQu4/s1600/cubeblue.png" height="237" width="320" /></a></div>
I read an article
describing a woman who was raising her daughter to be a mother—to
marry young to a good man, have children, and spend her life raising
her children.<sup>1</sup> The criticism of her was blistering. One
theme continually popped up in comments: how can you waste your
daughter's potential?
<br />
<br />
Potential? Potential
to be what, exactly? A doctor, lawyer, or CEO; one of life's movers
and shakers. There are a couple of problems with that attitude. For
one, those types of careers are few and far between. Secondly, for
most people (man or woman) the meaning of life won't be found on the
job—it will be found at home in their families and in God.
<br />
<br /><a name='more'></a>
It's curious that we
rhetorically talk about young women becoming professionals, when so
few of those jobs are available. In the USA, only 2 people in 1000
are doctors; only 4 in 1000 are lawyers; only 7 in 1000 are CEO's of
a company. The likely careers for women are very different.
<br />
<blockquote>
16% Office and
administrative support
<br />
11% Sales
<br />
9% Food
preparation and serving
<br />
7% Transportation
and material moving
<br />
7% Production
(factory work)
<br />
–----
<br />
50% of all
jobs
<br />
<br />
2% Engineering
and architecture
<br />
1% Community
and social services
<br />
1% Arts,
design, entertainment, sports, media
<br />
1% Life,
physical, social sciences
<br />
1% Legal<sup>2</sup>
<br />
–----
<br />
6% of all jobs</blockquote>
A career is much
more likely to end up as a boring office, sales, or manual labor job
than as some elite professional job. 90% of people will not end up in
the top 10%.
<br />
<br />
Even if they do land
a top tier job, there's no guarantee it will be the be-all-end-all of
their life. Occupational burnout<sup>3</sup> has become common,
because so called top tier jobs are stressful, pressure filled, and
time consuming. Plus, there's no guarantee you'll get to keep it once
you land it. Lay offs are now common. A career truly is a “here
today, gone tomorrow” proposition in the modern world.
<br />
<br />
Perhaps we should
quit telling young women the meaning of life can be found in a career
and instead point them to where lasting meaning can be found: in
family and God.
<br />
<blockquote>
For no one can lay any other foundation
than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if anyone
builds on the foundation with gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay,
or stubble; each man’s work will be revealed. For the Day will
declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself will
test what sort of work each man’s work is. If any man’s
work remains which he built on it, he will receive a reward. If any
man’s work is burned, he will suffer loss, but he himself will
be saved, but as through fire. (1Co 3:11-15 WEB)
<br />
<br />
Behold, children are a heritage of
Yahweh. The fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows in the hand of
a mighty man, so are the children of youth. Happy is the man who has
his quiver full of them. (Ps 127:3-4 WEB)
<br />
<br />
Adam wasn’t deceived, but the
woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; but she will be
saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and
sanctification with sobriety. (1Ti 2:14-15 WEB)</blockquote>
Am I saying getting
married and having children is the only way to live your life? Far
from it. Even the Bible bluntly says marriage is optional for
Christians.<sup>3</sup> But, the drumbeat from modern society that
life's meaning can be found in work is inaccurate. It's bad enough
that this has been the mantra for men in the industrial age, but to
have extended this mantra to women in the last few decades has been,
to be blunt, ludicrous.
<br />
<blockquote>
Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a
walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the
stage and is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of
sound and fury, signifying nothing. - William Shakespeare, Macbeth</blockquote>
How many women, as
they are being escorted out the door of a company after being laid
off, are thinking “I gave up the chance to have children, a
husband, a family for...this!” We seem to have arranged modern
society to ensure the lives of women are meaningless. Deliberately
undermining any dreams of becoming mothers and replacing them with a
“sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2557949/I-spend-fortune-send-girl-private-school-shell-marry-rich-never-work-An-unashamed-confession-RACHEL-RAGG.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2557949/I-spend-fortune-send-girl-private-school-shell-marry-rich-never-work-An-unashamed-confession-RACHEL-RAGG.html</a>
<br />
<br />
2
<a href="http://bls.gov/oes/2012/may/featured_data.htm#largest">http://bls.gov/oes/2012/may/featured_data.htm#largest</a>
<br />
<br />
3
<a href="http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2013/09/marriage-is-optional-for-christians.html">http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2013/09/marriage-is-optional-for-christians.html</a>
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-83760925463075941172014-02-08T08:49:00.000-08:002017-03-05T05:35:04.446-08:00How a Woman Can “Have It All” In an earlier
post<sup>10</sup>, I noted the modern feminist meme of women having
it all. Unfortunately, not only does the feminist plan ensure women
don't “have it all,” it ensures what they do have will be
royally screwed up. From a man's perspective, this means they are
awful (inferior, substandard, flawed) wife material.
<br />
<br />
Here is a different
plan. One that allows women to achieve life's major goals and still
be good choices as wives.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtFXcsmIyMglzbOaDiNACqKH2P1mNeIwRh07AV_lO8gtYfLXlEY_azQlQ10vqgysfOuitLx1wn-stkaIJM7hyphenhyphenVlN3ZvW67aj4d30Jentobc3m4e59AiV0k2HNgjaJJnB0Q1Q_WWNpccdk/s1600/hiaChart2Blue.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtFXcsmIyMglzbOaDiNACqKH2P1mNeIwRh07AV_lO8gtYfLXlEY_azQlQ10vqgysfOuitLx1wn-stkaIJM7hyphenhyphenVlN3ZvW67aj4d30Jentobc3m4e59AiV0k2HNgjaJJnB0Q1Q_WWNpccdk/s1600/hiaChart2Blue.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><b>18-22 Marriage</b>
<br />
<br />
Women need to marry young if they want to “have it all”
in life. Through most of history, women have married in this age
range.<sup>1</sup> It has only been since 1990 (and the rise of the
feminist meme) that women have started to delay marriage past this
point).
<br />
<br />
And there was a good reason for this. This is the age range when
women are at the peak of both their sexual and marriage value. It is
when they have the most to offer a potential husband, and thus had
the best chance of “marrying up” and landing the best
quality husband possible.
<br />
<br />
Do women lose out on something by marrying young? They lose out on
the chance to “explore their sexuality” by having sex
with lots of different men. Women who go down that road end up as
poor wife material. The odds they end up as an alpha widow<sup>2</sup>
are high. If a woman wants to go down that road and damage herself,
she has every right to do so, but that doesn't mean you have to marry
her—so don't.
<br />
<br />
<b>22-30 Motherhood</b>
<br />
<br />
The best time for a
woman to have children is in their 20's. Their fertility rate is
high, their miscarriage rate is low, and it is the age they are the
most likely to give birth to a <b>healthy</b> child. Plus, having
children is relatively uncomplicated at this age. A woman who starts
having children in her early twenties could easily have 5 or 6, if
that was her desire. But, there is one reason for having children in
her twenties that overrides all others:
<br />
<blockquote>
Having children after 30 is
hard—sometimes impossible—for a woman.</blockquote>
Human women simply
weren't designed to have babies after they are 30. Their baby making
capability starts to go downhill after they hit 30—fast.
Biology is what it is. If a woman wants to have children, then she
needs to focus on having them in her twenties. If there's one hard
lesson that has been learned by women over the last few decades, it
is this:
<br />
<blockquote>
Women who delay attempting to have
children until after they are 30 often miss out on their opportunity
to become mothers.</blockquote>
According to a 2010 study,<sup>3</sup> 20% of
women over 40 are childless (compared to only 10% in 1970). Almost
all of that increase can be attributed to woman waiting till their
30's to start having children, only to find they had become barren.
<br />
<br />
<b>31-40 Parenting
and Education</b>
<br />
<br />
Studies
demonstrating the benefits to children of having a stay at home mom
are few, because the idea is politically incorrect. However, studies
showing that (1) high levels of group care at a young age is
associated with anti-social behavior and (2) children cared for by
their mothers did significantly better in developmental tests are
confirming what we know at a gut level: a child benefits from having
a stay at home mom.<sup>6</sup>
<br />
<br />
This explains why,
despite society drum-beating the “benefits” of being a
working mother, 43% of women leave their jobs when they have
children.<sup>7</sup> Of those that remain in the workforce, 37% said
they would prefer to be stay at home moms and 57% wanted to cut back
on their work hours to spend more time with their children.<sup>5</sup>
They don't, because they can't afford it financially.
<br />
<br />
The vast majority of
women want to parent their children. Under the scenario I'm laying
out, they get to do that.
<br />
<br />
By 31, under this
scenario, most women will be done having children. They'll be in the
stage where they are stay at home moms. Getting their kids from
diapers to adulthood.
<br />
<br />
Of course, most of
these years the children will be in school (elementary, middle, or
high) for much of the day, leaving the mother with little to do.
Betty Friedan's “problem that has no name” amounted to
nothing more than boredom. Modern appliances (from the washing
machine to vacuums that run themselves) have reduced homemaking from
drudgery to a nominal chore. I propose to fill that gap with
education.
<br />
<br />
This is the time I
suggest women go to school and get their college degree and prepare
for a career. The time the kids are in school will give her plenty of
time to study and attend classes. It might take her a little longer
(maybe 6 years instead of 4, because she'll probably have to go part
time), but so what? She's not a hurry under this scenario; she can
afford to take her time.
<br />
<br />
There are plenty of
non-traditional ways to get a degree at this point in life. From
local colleges that offer programs for adults to online/distance
degree programs like the one at the University of Florida<sup>8</sup>.
The days when the only way to get a college degree was by living on
campus for years is long gone.
<br />
<br />
<b>40-65 Career</b>
<br />
<br />
The kids are
older—either in high school or beyond. If she wisely took
advantage of her time in her 30's she has a college degree. It's time
to “get to work” and start a career. Forty may seem late
to start a career, but look at it this way: she still has 25 years—a
quarter of a century—of working life left.
<br />
<br />
Changing not just
jobs, but career fields multiple times in a lifetime is now the norm.
I've had three separate careers (retail store manager, owner of a
business services company, and computer programmer) not to mention
several “mini careers” (musician, fork lift operator)
along the way. My experience is now common. According to the
Department of Labor, the average worker changes careers (not jobs,
but career fields) 3 to 5 times in their life. Establishing your
career field out of high school/college and staying with it the rest
of your life is now the exception, not the rule.<sup>9</sup>
<br />
<br />
A quarter of a
century is plenty of time for a working career and move up the
ladder—especially considering we're talking about <b>a solid
block of 25 years</b>. In fact, it's the feminist work
time-line—which bifurcates a woman's career years—that
makes it impossible for women to move up the business ladder.<sup>10</sup>
<br />
<br />
<b>Summary</b>
<br />
<br />
Women can “have
it all” (marriage, motherhood, parenting their children,
education and career) if they follow this time-line, but it requires
her to make wise choices and live life with some level of discipline.
<br />
<br />
But what if she
doesn't want to follow this time-line? What if she insists on living
life according the the feminist<sup>10</sup> (or some other)
time-line?
<br />
<blockquote>
Don't marry her.</blockquote>
That's right, don't marry her. Let her go her own
way. Marriage is a partnership; it's about two people that agree on
life's path, join themselves together, and then head down that path
together. There's one thing worse than not being married: making a
bad marriage.
<br />
<blockquote>
A prudent man sees danger and takes
refuge; but the simple pass on, and suffer for it. ...A continual
dropping on a rainy day and a contentious wife are alike: restraining
her is like restraining the wind, or like grasping oil in his right
hand. (Pr 27:12, 16 WEB)
<br />
<br />
The north wind brings forth rain: so a
backbiting tongue brings an angry face. It is better to dwell in the
corner of the housetop, than to share a house with a contentious
woman. (Pr 25:23-24 WEB)</blockquote>
A woman that wants
to live life in reverse<sup>10</sup> is dangerous; she will ruin your
life. Open your eyes; see her for what she is: a danger to your life;
and take refuge. Don't attempt to change her mind or show her the
errors of her ways. Why waste your time trying to restrain the wind?
Simply walk away; don't get involved with her; and whatever you do,
do not marry her.
<br />
<br />
<br />
1
<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html</a>
<br />
<br />
2
<a href="http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/06/the-slut-paradox/">http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/06/the-slut-paradox/</a>
<br />
<br />
3
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500188.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500188.html</a>
<br />
<br />
5
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549127/One-three-working-mums-want-quit-look-children.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549127/One-three-working-mums-want-quit-look-children.html</a>
<br />
<br />
6
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2296567/Scientific-proof-stay-home-mothers-benefit-children-So-coalition-Budget-tax-break-working-mothers.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2296567/Scientific-proof-stay-home-mothers-benefit-children-So-coalition-Budget-tax-break-working-mothers.html</a>
<br />
<br />
7
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/why-43-of-women-with-children-leave-their-jobs-and-how-to-get-them-back/275134/">http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/why-43-of-women-with-children-leave-their-jobs-and-how-to-get-them-back/275134/</a>
<br />
<br />
8
<a href="http://www.distance.ufl.edu/online-degree-programs">http://www.distance.ufl.edu/online-degree-programs</a>
<br />
<br />
9
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01webcareers.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01webcareers.html?_r=0</a>
<br />
<br />
10
<a href="http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2013/11/woman-who-live-life-in-reverse.html">http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2013/11/woman-who-live-life-in-reverse.html</a>
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-19243427385927939622014-01-29T12:32:00.000-08:002017-03-05T06:02:50.122-08:00PAC-Man: The Passive-Aggressive Christian Man<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA1mqiIwrZgvLMU9E6dOk4ZEyTrRTtHjWuBdi79dbUPc4LzVeYRpiZh-0KT8cIm9BtNYt02YqRW1AqQZ4mPLy_8moPuh5bTAgk25TgLeTU7D5sRUbspvqJkuu2N5Q8Cg8gH45EZtMfR7Y/s1600/packman.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA1mqiIwrZgvLMU9E6dOk4ZEyTrRTtHjWuBdi79dbUPc4LzVeYRpiZh-0KT8cIm9BtNYt02YqRW1AqQZ4mPLy_8moPuh5bTAgk25TgLeTU7D5sRUbspvqJkuu2N5Q8Cg8gH45EZtMfR7Y/s1600/packman.png" width="200" /></a></div>
Dr. Paul Glover, in
his 2003 book <i>No More Mr. Nice Guy</i>, says nice guys are
dishonest, secretive, manipulative, controlling, attracted to people
that need fixing, and full of rage; they have difficulty setting
boundaries and problems with intimate relationships; they fear
conflict, blame others for their problems, fail to live up to their
potential, and give to get.
<br />
<br />
Dr. Scott Wetzler,
in his 1992 book <i>Living With the Passive-Aggressive Male</i>, says
passive-aggressive men are dishonest, secretive, manipulative,
controlling, attracted to people that need fixing, and full of rage;
they have difficulty setting boundaries and problems with intimate
relationships; they fear conflict, blame others for their problems,
fail to live up to their potential, and give to get.
<br />
<br />
Glover states “Nice
guys are passive-aggressive.” Wetzler states
“...passive-aggressive men negotiate the world as 'nice guys'
denying even the slightest hint of hostility or conflict.”
<br />
<br />
This is not a
coincidence. Being a nice guy and being a passive aggressive man go
hand in hand. Glover's and Wetzler's books are eerily similar. Even
though their subjects are different and the approach from opposite
directions, you can't help but get the feeling that they are
describing the same person—because they are.
<br />
<br />
It's no secret that
the modern Christian church has become a nice guy factory. What
people have failed to realize is that it has also become a factory
for producing passive-aggressive men. The nice guy personality turned
out by churches is the one described in the above books—the one
that goes hand in hand with being passive-aggressive.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>There are long,
complicated definitions of passive-aggressive behavior, but it really
boils down to this:
<br />
<blockquote>
Passive-aggressive behavior is when one
person attempts to control another person from a position of weakness
(real or imagined). The passive-aggressive person displays an
exterior persona of politeness and civility while simultaneously
acting in an aggressive manner.</blockquote>
The changes in
American society over the last half century have produced an increase
in passive-aggressive men. Once upon a time, if a man wanted
something, he went after it—fighting for it if necessary. The
aggressive man was not only approved by society, he was held up as a
model of manhood. Today, overt aggression in men is not only
discouraged, it is criminalized. A husband who simply raises his
voice at his wife risks being hauled out of his own home by the
police and being charged with abusing his wife. Wetzler describes how
societal changes have affected men:
<br />
<blockquote>
For the New Man, it is accepted practice
to complain on the job (once thought to be “sissified”),
bemoan one's fate, plead poverty, and show weakness, rather than
always be the old-style stoic, take-a-stand-type leader. ...some men
have turned humiliation into a “productive and profitable
system.”
</blockquote>
Men today are
rewarded for suppressing any overt aggression, but that doesn't mean
their nature has changed. The aggressive nature of men has simply
been channeled into a form that appears non-aggressive to the outside
world.
<br />
<br />
Wetzler also points
out two family structures that are breeding grounds for
passive-aggressive men:
<br />
<ol>
<li>Families where
the father is absent, distant, or withdrawn</li>
<li>Families where
the mother is the dominant parent/authority (a matriarchal
household)
</li>
</ol>
And into this
cultural environment (which is already pushing young men into a
passive-aggressive mindset) steps modern Christianity with its WWJD,
turn the other cheek, be nice teachings. Paul Coughlin, in his 2007
book <i>No More Christian Nice Guy</i>, described it this way:
<br />
<blockquote>
A large portion of the church tells them
{Christian men} they should rarely if ever exert their will, that
possessing passion, boldness, and intensity is wrong and ‘‘worldly.’’
Those qualities belong to ‘‘aggressive’’ and
‘‘proud’’ men. (Ironically, including Jesus.)
Many have told me that it’s far more Christian to live limply,
deny your heart’s desires, and keep your life in neutral
because somehow, brother, this glorifies God.</blockquote>
This approach <i>might</i>
have made some sense prior to WWII as an attempt to temper the overt
aggressiveness of men in American society, but it makes no sense
today. Unfortunately, as Coughlin notes, modern Christianity doesn't
stop here:
<br />
<blockquote>
That Christian men are expected to follow
a nonexistent Jesus hinders and frustrates those of us who possess a
vital masculine nature but are told not to activate it.
<br />
<br />
When we reach those sticky parts of the
New Testament where Jesus lost his cool and called people names, we
still portray him as having a gleam in his eye or as suppressing a
kind smile, because Jesus would never be that rude. He wasn’t
really mad, says the underlying message. He just raised his voice a
little to get everyone’s attention, like a tour guide on a busy
street.
<br />
<br />
Looking back, I once believed this
caricature of ‘‘gentle Jesus, meek and mild’’
because it was what I internalized during well-orchestrated church
services designed to make God palatable to contemporary taste buds. I
was told, though not in so many words, that the safe and pleasant
route is really the best.
<br />
<br />
It gets worse. Christian Nice Guys (CNGs)
are even told that by turning themselves into involuntary doormats
for others (something they often mistake for sacrificial giving),
they will somehow, magically, against all understanding of human
nature and experience, lead others to Christ.</blockquote>
Christianity, as it
is commonly taught today in America, is simply pushing men farther
down the cultural rabbit hole. Instead of making them more like
Christ, it is making them more like the world—more nice guy;
more passive-aggressive.
<br />
<br />
<b>Passive-aggressive
men are terrible husbands and fathers.</b>
<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that even Christian women recoil at the thought of a
“nice” Christian man? They may not comprehend the reason
intellectually, but they grasp at a visceral level that there is
something wrong with these nice guys.
<br />
<br />
<b>Passive-aggressive
men are not respected.</b>
<br />
<br />
Not by other men,
women, and certainly not by society at large. How can we hope to
bring people to Christ if our standard bearers are men nobody
respects?
<br />
<br />
<b>Passive-aggressive
men are not masculine.</b>
<br />
<br />
It is not a
culturally masculine trait, nor is it biblically masculine. Wetzler
notes that historically, passive-aggressive behavior has been
associated with women. It's only in the last half century, with the
rise of the neutered male, that it has become common for men to act
in a passive-aggressive manner.
<br />
<br />
And it has become
far too common.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-77856960053758660082014-01-27T17:32:00.001-08:002014-01-29T13:49:46.163-08:00Courage vs ConfidenceCourage is the opposite of cowardice; confidence is the opposite of uncertainty.
<br />
<br />
Courage and
cowardice are antonyms—they mean the opposite of each other.
They both deal with how you handle <b>fear</b>.
<br />
<br />
Confidence and
uncertainty antonyms—they mean the opposite of each other. They
both deal with how you handle <b>doubt</b>.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>If you look at the
dictionary definition of confidence the word courage is nowhere to be
found.
<br />
<blockquote>
con·fi·dence noun
\ˈkän-fə-dən(t)s, -ˌden(t)s\
<br />
<ul>
<li>A feeling or belief that you can do
something well or succeed at something
</li>
<li>A feeling or belief that someone or
something is good or has the ability to succeed at something
</li>
<li>The feeling of being certain that
something will happen or that something is true
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Likewise, if you
look at the dictionary definition of courage the word confidence is
nowhere to be found.
<br />
<blockquote>
cour·age noun \ˈkər-ij,
ˈkə-rij\
<br />
<ul>
<li>The ability to do something that you
know is difficult or dangerous
</li>
<li>Mental or moral strength to venture,
persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<b>David was
confident, not courageous.</b>
<br />
<blockquote>
David said to Saul, "Let no man’s
heart fail because of him. Your servant will go and fight with this
Philistine."
<br />
<br />
Saul said to David, "You are not
able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but
a youth, and he a man of war from his youth." David said to
Saul, "Your servant was keeping his father’s sheep; and
when a lion or a bear came, and took a lamb out of the flock, I went
out after him, and struck him, and rescued it out of his mouth. When
he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and struck him, and
killed him. <b>Your servant struck both the lion and the bear.</b>
This uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, since he has
defied the armies of the living God." David said, "<b>Yahweh
who delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of
the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine.</b>"
<br />
<br />
Saul said to David, "Go; and Yahweh
shall be with you." Saul dressed David with his clothing. He put
a helmet of brass on his head, and he clad him with a coat of mail.
David strapped his sword on his clothing, and he tried to move; for
he had not tested it. David said to Saul, "I can’t go with
these; for I have not tested them." David took them off.
<br />
<br />
He took his staff in his hand, and chose
for himself five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in the
shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his wallet. His sling was
in his hand; and he drew near to the Philistine. The Philistine came
on and drew near to David; and the man who bore the shield went
before him. When the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he
disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and withal of a
fair face. The Philistine said to David, "Am I a dog, that you
come to me with sticks?" The Philistine cursed David by his
gods. The Philistine said to David, "Come to me, and I will give
your flesh to the birds of the sky, and to the animals of the field."
<br />
<br />
Then David said to the Philistine, "You
come to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin: but I
come to you in the name of Yahweh of Armies, the God of the armies of
Israel, whom you have defied. <b>Today, Yahweh will deliver you into
my hand.</b> I will strike you, and take your head from off you. I
will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to
the birds of the sky, and to the wild animals of the earth; that all
the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this
assembly may know that Yahweh doesn’t save with sword and
spear: <b>for the battle is Yahweh’s, and he will give you into
our hand.</b>" (1Sa 17:32-47 WEB)</blockquote>
David's fight with Goliath is often held up as a
model of courage, but are we really reading about courage or
confidence? David had fought and killed both a lion and bear—two
animals that even the giant Goliath would have problems defeating.
Moreover, there is no doubt in David's mind that God will make him
victorious over Goliath.
<br />
<br />
Where's the fear? There was none. Courage is the
overcoming of fear. David's faith in God was so strong that had no
fear of going into battle with Goliath. David trusted God. David was confident, but not
courageous.
<br />
<br />
This is not to say that David wasn't admirable. He
is, but it is his faith in God that we should admire in this story. A
faith that produced confidence—a confidence that allowed him
proceed without fear.
<br />
<br />
<b>Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego Were courageous.</b>
<br />
<blockquote>
Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury
commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought
these men before the king. Nebuchadnezzar answered them, Is it on
purpose, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you don’t serve
my god, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now if you
are ready whenever you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither,
lyre, harp, pipe, and all kinds of music to fall down and worship the
image which I have made, well: but if you don’t worship, you
shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery
furnace; and who is that god that shall deliver you out of my hands?
<br />
<br />
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered
the king, Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this
matter. If it be so, <b>our God
whom we serve is able to deliver us</b> from the burning fiery
furnace; and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. <b>But if
not</b>, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your
gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up. (Da 3:13-18
WEB)</blockquote>
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego knew that God
could deliver them (if he chose to do so), but they knew it was a
real possibility that he would not. Yet, they thought it was more
important to honor God (and risk a gruesome death) than to give in to
their fear and save themselves. That's courage.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-23544310248107626952014-01-19T14:56:00.001-08:002014-01-27T17:40:10.633-08:00Presentation MattersRecently, I've
noticed another round in the debate between just-be-yourself and
craft-your-image; between what is known as inner-game and outer-game.
The inner-game argument is that you should not present yourself as
something you are not. A reasonable argument, but it is then taken to
the extreme. The argument is being made that you should only focus on
your inner qualities. Don't worry about your outer qualities—your
image, because your inner qualities will shine out and people will
see you for your true self. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work
in the real world.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><b>Others Judge you
on your outer self before you have a chance to show your inner self.</b>
<br />
<br />
According to one
study<sup>1</sup>, the part of the human brain that becomes active
when two people meet for the first time is the same part that assigns
prices to objects and calculates risk. And this is done in the first
few seconds of two people meeting. Most studies put it at 7 seconds,
but one study<sup>2 </sup>found people make judgments of others in as
little as one tenth of a second.
<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter if
it's 7 seconds, or 1/10 of a second. The point is neither is long
enough for your inner self to come out and make a first impression.
First impressions are hard to change, because (1) most people believe
they are good at making judgments about people and (2) people don't
like admitting (even to themselves) that they were wrong.
Consequently, when they make a quick judgment about someone, they are
more open to information that confirms their first impression and
less open to information that contradicts it. Making a poor first
impression means you have to work harder to show people your true
inner self.
<br />
<br />
Consider the picture
below. What is your first impression of both of these men?
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg16lFMxodkx6CBTV_XcCKz73BntPmvV9xOwcWl-QX3MgYaxXpFIIz59uGhFdPkEUek0IbWvG2hnMzGIUsXHnyKlgMJAWy0U9DKEzAV1x3v0NYxjrIWovhY-iguH10Kw24qiP-YxCo75eI/s1600/pb2b.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg16lFMxodkx6CBTV_XcCKz73BntPmvV9xOwcWl-QX3MgYaxXpFIIz59uGhFdPkEUek0IbWvG2hnMzGIUsXHnyKlgMJAWy0U9DKEzAV1x3v0NYxjrIWovhY-iguH10Kw24qiP-YxCo75eI/s1600/pb2b.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The man on the left
is the now infamous Pajama Boy from an ObamaCare ad, who has been
mentioned nationally as a poor example of modern manhood. Now take a
closer look at the man on the right. His facial features, expression,
and even his haircut are all but identical to Pajama Boy's. So why
does one picture produce a negative first impression and the other a
positive one? It's the way he presents himself.
<br />
<br />
This is the same
approach Paul took when he said he became “all things to all
people.”
<br />
<blockquote>
To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I
might gain Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,
that I might gain those who are under the law; to those who are
without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but
under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law.
To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak. I have
become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. (1Co
9:20-22 WEB)</blockquote>
Paul understood that
how you present yourself matters. That you have to get make a good
first impression if you want to get your message across.
<br />
<br />
<b>Your outer self
affects your inner self.</b>
<br />
<br />
Years ago I read of
a failing salesman who tried one last ditch effort to save his
career. He bought a $1,000 suit. Not a $950 or $975 suit, but a one
thousand dollar suit. The ego boost it gave him shot his confidence
through the roof and saved his sales career. For years I thought this
was all mental, but there has been research lately showing that your
outer persona actually causes physically changes.
<br />
<br />
Research by Amy
Cuddy<sup>3</sup> has shown that if you act in a confident manner
your testosterone level increases and your cortisol level decreases.
Conversely, if you act in a apprehensive manner, your testosterone
level goes down and your cortisol level goes up. Testosterone is
associated with feelings of confidence and assertiveness. Cortisol is
associated with feelings of apprehension and timidity. Pump someone
full of testosterone and they become super self confident; pump that
same person full of cortisol and he becomes super timid.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM1wi9AQjcNzJ2NDIAiQLxfWsNtbu8FVBpzpJYd7jSJ0krETZzDPnotAPQKrnSde0N6sY2L6W7HbdCYz1gYlvKW7boXpnkEN1IYSYOghTAaMNxcV5zQThE8b3jFsrPNGkCtLr1EOwoxmo/s1600/men2b.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM1wi9AQjcNzJ2NDIAiQLxfWsNtbu8FVBpzpJYd7jSJ0krETZzDPnotAPQKrnSde0N6sY2L6W7HbdCYz1gYlvKW7boXpnkEN1IYSYOghTAaMNxcV5zQThE8b3jFsrPNGkCtLr1EOwoxmo/s1600/men2b.png" height="248" width="320" /></a></div>
Cuddy found that this effect went beyond how the individual felt. It
also affected how others viewed the individual. As an experiment, she
had a set of individuals (in private) take a confident pose—the
Superman pose—for a few minutes and then participate in a job
interview. She also had a group of individuals take (in private) a
non-confident pose, and then participate in a job interview. She then
surveyed the interviewers of their impression of the candidate.
<br />
<br />
And what did the
interviewers think? Even though they had no knowledge of who was who,
they rated the confident posers higher than the non-confident posers.
The simple act of taking a confident pose for a few minutes (or not)
had changed their personalities enough that strangers—upon
meeting them for the first time—noticed how it influenced their
personalities.
<br />
<br />
While the advice to
just be yourself and let your inner self shine out is well meaning,
it is also flawed. How you present yourself matters. It changes how
others view you and it changes how you view yourself.
<br />
<br />
1 <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-luck/201302/the-science-first-impressions">http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-luck/201302/the-science-first-impressions</a>
<br />
<br />
2 <a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2006/july-06/how-many-seconds-to-a-first-impression.html">http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2006/july-06/how-many-seconds-to-a-first-impression.html</a>
<br />
<br />
3 <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html">http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html</a>
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-64863401967553697372013-12-29T10:00:00.000-08:002014-01-29T13:50:15.190-08:00The Myth of the Egalitarian Marriage<blockquote>
My wife and I are equals. We share in all
the decision making. Neither of us is the leader of the other.</blockquote>
The egalitarian view
sounds so lovely. Two people living together in harmony. Neither
having more authority in the relationship than the other and neither
having more responsibility in the relationship than the other.
Unfortunately, it's merely a utopian vision, because when a crisis
occurs (when the metaphorical shit hits the fan) the egalitarian
model breaks down.
<br />
<br />
Consider this
scenario:
<br />
<br />
<i>A married couple
along with their two children are driving home from a weekend trip.
As they round the corner their home comes into view. There are
firetrucks and flashing lights. They simultaneously realize that
their house has burned to the ground. One spouse emotionally melts
down; turns to the other spouse; and with tears in their eyes and
panic in their voice screams: “Oh my God! What are we going to
do? Tell me, what are we going to do?”</i>
<br />
<br />
Which spouse had the
emotional meltdown?
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Or to put it another
way, which spouse has the <b>option</b> of emotionally melting down
in this situation: the husband or the wife? The wife. Now, this
doesn't mean she must break down emotionally, but because she is a
woman she has that option. It is accepted by society (including
modern feminist society) that women have this option.
<br />
<br />
Men (married or
single) do not have this option when a crisis occurs. They are
expected to remain stoically calm, controlled, and clear headed. A
husband who failed to do so in the above scenario would not only be
called unmanly by even the most feminist of wives, but would be
criticized for failing to support his wife emotionally (the wife that
exercised her option of melting down emotionally; the option he never
had). When a crisis strikes, egalitarian gets quickly forgotten.
<br />
<br />
OK, so that just
means that a couple can have an egalitarian marriage from day to day,
but when a crisis strikes they will switch to a complementary
marriage model where the husband takes the lead—right? Wrong.
<br />
<blockquote>
He who is faithful in a very little is
faithful also in much. He who is dishonest in a very little is also
dishonest in much. (Lu 16:10 WEB)</blockquote>
The biblical lesson is that you discern a person's
character by how they conduct themselves in small, day to day
situations. It makes sense, because there really is no other way to
determine how someone will conduct themselves in large matters until
a large matter actually arises. Let's (with a little rewording) apply
this verse to marriage.
<br />
<blockquote>
A husband who shows leadership in the
everyday things will also show leadership in a crisis. A husband who
does not show leadership in the everyday things will not show
leadership in a crisis.</blockquote>
Is this <i>always</i> true? We can all site an
example of someone unexpectedly stepping up in a crisis, but how
would you know ahead of time someone will “unexpectedly”
step up in a crisis? You wouldn't. That's why it's unexpected.
<br />
<br />
Women fitness test
their husbands to determine if their husband will step up in the
small crises so she will feel confident he will step up when a large
crisis hits. Security is the number one need of women, and at the top
of that security list is the need to know their husband will take the
lead when a crisis occurs. It's biologically wired into women. An
egalitarian marriage model doesn't feed that need.
<br />
<blockquote>
I make all the decisions (as long as my
wife agrees with them).</blockquote>
The above quote was
taken from a real estate article teaching realtors how to determine
who was the real decision maker—the husband or the wife. Think
you're the leader in your family? Look at the above quote. If your
wife has veto power over your decisions, then she (not you) is the
real authority in your home. Do you second guess your decisions based
on what your wife might think, even on the small meaningless
decisions? If so, then you have handed the reigns of family
leadership over to your wife. You've created a situation where she
can't trust you even on the little things.
<br />
<br />
One of the
fascinating findings of Game is how well all women (and especially
wives) responded to men unilaterally making decisions. In fact, the
smaller the decision the happier women are when the man makes a
unilateral decision. You thought you were making her happy by letting
her pick where to eat, but you were only making her <b>nervous</b>.
“If he can't even make a decision about where to eat, how will
he ever make an important decision?”
<br />
<blockquote>
A husband
who does not show leadership in the everyday things will not show
leadership in a crisis.</blockquote>
When a wife gets nervous about your ability to
lead, she will start to second guess her husband even on the small
decisions. The solution isn't to give in to her on the small things.
You might think “Let her make the decisions on the little
things; what does it matter? ” It matters to her, because she's
pushing you—testing you—to determine if you have a
backbone. If you can't stand up to her—a little ol' woman—how
can she expect that you'll stand up to real trouble when it arrives.
And every time you don't it makes her more nervous about your ability
to lead; and the more nervous she becomes the more leadership she'll
assume (because if he won't do it, then I guess I'll have to do it
for the good of the family). Eventually it will get to the point that
she will be making all the decisions (either explicitly or by holding
veto over all of her husband's decisions).
<br />
<br />
You might not think this is a bad thing. I know
there are plenty of men who don't want to shoulder the responsibility
for making the decisions in life; for being the leader of their
family. It's a burden, and a lot of men are happier not shouldering
that burden. But your wife won't be happier. She'll be nervous and
frustrated. Do you know how women in this situation talk about their
husbands? “He's a child; I can't trust him; I feel more like
his mother than his wife.” No woman (even the most radical
feminist) wants to feel like she's her husband's mother.
<br />
<br />
Ever wonder what happened to your sex life after
marriage? When a woman starts making the decisions—starts
taking the leadership role in the marriage—her sexual
attraction for her husband starts to wane. Eventually it disappears
all together. Do you think a woman who feels like she's her husband's
mother wants to jump her husband's bones for some wild and passionate
sex? Just the opposite. She will come to see her husband as sexually
repulsive, because she will no longer see her husband as a man.
<br />
<blockquote>
A husband who shows leadership in the
everyday things will also show leadership in a crisis.</blockquote>
Women see the willingness to make unilateral
decisions as confidence. The one trait all women rate as the top
attribute they want in a man is confidence. In fact, confidence and
masculinity go hand in hand in women's minds. If you are confident
you are masculine; if you are not confident you are not masculine.
Start small. Start making simple, everyday decisions. Don't ask her
where she want's to eat, just drive to the restaurant. Don't ask her
what she wants to watch on TV, just say “let's watch this.”
Don't ask her if she minds if you play golf, just tell her “I'm
playing golf this Saturday.” She'll push back, but remember she
doesn't want you to give in. She's only pushing back to see if you
have the confidence to stand up to her. Eventually you'll work up to
larger and larger decisions.
<br />
<br />
She'll see you as having more confidence, which
will cause her to (1) turn over even more of a leadership role to
you, and (2) see you as more masculine (more of a man) which will
make her not only happier, but more attracted to you sexually. Just
remember the following:
<br />
<blockquote>
A husband who shows leadership in the
everyday things will also show leadership in a crisis. A husband who
does not show leadership in the everyday things will not show
leadership in a crisis.</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-77599412901371207922013-12-14T12:56:00.001-08:002017-03-05T06:04:29.458-08:00Men, You Are the PrizeThis is a letter I
composed for a friend who's dealings with women over the years has
caused him little but grief. The names have been changed to protect
the innocent.
<br />
<br />
Luke,
<br />
<br />
I've heard once
again hat you've had problems with a woman. I can relate to that.
Recently, I've come to realize something:
<br />
<blockquote>
In any relationship between a man and a woman, the woman is not the
prize—the man is the prize.
<br />
<a name='more'></a></blockquote>
This is the opposite
of everything we were taught growing up. Wasn't the girl supposed to
be the prize? Weren't we supposed to chase after the girl in an
attempt to “win” her? Yes, that's what we were taught,
and it's 100% wrong. Consider what the typical woman brings to a long
term relationship:
<br />
<ol>
<li><b>Sex</b>. Of
course, this one goes both ways. The truth is women like sex as much
as men, otherwise there would be no such thing as a one night stand.
Don't fall into the trap that she's doing you a favor by having sex
with you. It is (and always has been) a mutual favor.</li>
<li><strike><b>Housekeeping</b></strike><strike>.</strike>
You would think
housekeeping was up there with being tortured in the pit of hell the
way women talk about it, but
with modern appliances how much housekeeping (vacuuming, laundry,
dish washing) does the average woman do in a day? I've run the
numbers at our house, and it's an hour—maybe two max—a
day. The fact is,
it's a lot darn cheaper to hire a maid than it is to support a
woman. Housekeeping
costs you more and you get less of it when you depend on your
woman to do it (not to mention the routine complaints about how hard
housekeeping is). From a
man's perspective, a
woman's housekeeping
contribution to the
relationship is a net
loss.</li>
<li><strike><b>Cooking.</b></strike>
Much
like housekeeping, this is overblown by most women. My wife cooks
one meal a day (which takes at most an hour), and complains about
it. Financially, it's much more expensive to feed two people than
one (especially
when you add in the times you pay for you both to eat out at a
restaurant).
The truth is you can eat out everyday by yourself and it would cost
you less than it costs to feed both of
you. A
woman's cooking contributions is also a net loss from a man's
perspective.</li>
<li><b>Companionship.</b>
Another
one that goes both ways. She gains as much from your companionship
as you do from hers.</li>
<li><b>Children
& Motherhood?</b>
This
is a big one, but again it's
mutual. You bring the
ability to sire and father children to the relationship. But
so what? At our age we're
not going to have any more
children. If a woman
brings children to the relationship, they will be children she has
had previously with another man. Raising
another man's kids—that's
not a plus, that's a minus.</li>
<li><b><strike>Money</strike></b>:
it's rare to find the woman who brings more money to the
relationship than she takes out. In
fact, what women usually bring is constant complaining about how the
man doesn't make enough money and pressure to spend money.
Regardless, no man
marries a woman for money.
</li>
</ol>
Bottom
line, all the things a woman brings to a relationship (sex,
companionship, children, motherhood) are really things that you both
bring to a relationship. Now lets consider some of the things you
bring to a relationship with a woman.
<br />
<ol>
<li><b>Sex.</b>
As I said, women like sex as much as men.</li>
<li><b>Companionship.</b>
If anything, you bring more of this to the relationship. Men are
often fine being independent and living on their own. Women's lives
are based around relationships.</li>
<li><b>Money.</b>
Are you rich? No, but
you're not poor either. You
are responsible
and bring in enough money to support yourself. You
do better than many men financially. Few men are happy living off a
woman. I've yet to meet a woman who was not only happy, but
considered it her right to have a man support her financially.
</li>
<li><b>Fatherhood.</b>
This is huge if
the woman has children from a previous marriage. Not
only do you bring mentoring to her kids, but you take a huge load
off her shoulders.</li>
<li><b>Housing.</b>
You own your own home. Is it a mansion? No, but it's a nice home and
you have one, which is more than most people have.</li>
<li><b>Status.</b>
The stereotype is the man landing
a trophy wife, but once
you reach our age it becomes reversed. The
saying that men get better looking as they get older, while women
just get older is true. You're tall, in good shape, and look 10
years younger than your age. Any
woman that walks into a room on your arm has bragging rights with
other women about being able to land a quality
man.</li>
<li><b>Man
chores.</b> From car
maintenance to killing spiders, there's a
plethora of things men do around the house that women
can't (or won't) do for
themselves.
</li>
<li><b>Security.</b>
This is the #1 need of
women. Having a man who provides all of the above translates to one
thing: security.
</li>
</ol>
Which
person above looks like the prize and which one looks like they are
getting the prize? Stop
degrading yourself and stop acting as if you would be lucky to land a
girl. The truth is most women would be lucky to land you, because
you're the real prize—she isn't. The
next time you
entertain getting into a relationship with a woman write
down a list of the things she will bring to the relationship and the
things you will bring. Study it, and then repeat
to yourself the truth that is
revealed by the list:
<br />
<br />
<b>I am
the prize!</b>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-22870013163996032082013-12-13T18:32:00.001-08:002017-03-05T05:49:09.841-08:00When Pastors Lie<blockquote>
58% of evangelical leaders say tithing is
not required of Christians.</blockquote>
That was the result
of a survey done by the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) of
their members<sup>1</sup> (members here refers to the leaders of the
various churches that belong to the NAE—the pastors who
actually run the church). When was the last time you heard an
evangelical church preach that tithing wasn't required? I can't think
of a single instance. Every sermon I've heard on tithing has
maintained that not only is tithing required, but to not tithe was
the same as robbing God—a literal sin. The conclusion is
obvious:
<br />
<blockquote><a name='more'></a>
Some of the 58% of evangelical pastors
that don't believe tithing is Biblical are preaching it anyway; they
are preaching something from the pulpit they believe in their heart
to be false.</blockquote>
Why? Why would a
pastor preach something from the pulpit they don't believe is
Biblical? The NAE article along with follow up articles to the survey
by <i>The Christian Post</i><sup><i>2 </i></sup> and <i>The Denver
Post</i><sup>3</sup> provide some insight.
<br />
<blockquote>
Leith Anderson, NAE President said “Since
there is such a strong evangelical tradition of tithing I was a
little surprised that a majority of our evangelical leaders say the
tithe system of the Old Testament does not carry over to the New
Testament or to us.”
<br />
<br />
"Anything
less seems like an ungenerous
response to God," wrote David Neff, editor-in-chief of
<i>Christianity
Today</i>,
in his response.
<br />
<br />
“While
tithing isn't required,” said Alan Robinson of the Brethren in
Christ Church, “the Old Testament model should lead New
Testament Christians to "live lives of sacrificial
generosity."” </blockquote>
Ungenerous?
Sacrificial generosity? Since none
of
the men quoted above actually believe tithing is Biblical—that
God actually
demands
a tithe of
Christians—who
do they
think Christians should “sacrifice generously” for? Their
brick and mortar churches—that's who. They
directly benefit from the misconception among their flock that
tithing is a mandate and not merely a tradition. That's the
reason they
not only do nothing to correct the misconception, but actively work
to promote that misconception among their flock.
<br />
<br />
The
point of this article is not to debate tithing. The point is to
provide a concrete example of pastors who deliberately and with
forethought lie to their flock. And in tithing (which 58% of
evangelical pastors don't believe in) we have that concrete example.
<br />
<blockquote>
Beware
of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly are ravening wolves. (Mt 7:15 WEB) </blockquote>
Jesus
warned us men like this would come one day. Men who would speak
falsehood in the name of God. That day has come. I'm sure the pastors
in the 58% who still
preach
tithing consider it just a little white lie; that the benefit
justifies it; that
it really doesn't hurt anyone. But, even a little white lie is still
a lie. Once someone becomes comfortable with the small lies, how long
till they become comfortable with the big lies? How long till they
forget why truth matters?
<br />
<blockquote>
For
the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine,
but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after
their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and
turn aside to fables. (2Ti 4:3-4 WEB) </blockquote>
We
are well on our way to the fulfillment of the above prophecy. Some
would argue we're already there. Regardless,
the Bible has given us some direction on how to comport ourselves in
these times.
<br />
<blockquote>
I
have not sat with deceitful men, neither will I go in with
hypocrites. I hate the assembly of evildoers, and will not sit with
the wicked. (Ps 26:4-5 WEB)
<br />
<br />
The
brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea.
When they arrived, they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these
were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the
word with all readiness of the mind, examining
the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
(Ac 17:10-11 WEB)
<br />
<br />
For
we are not as so many, peddling the word of God. But as of sincerity,
but as of God, in the sight of God, we speak in Christ. (2Co 2:17
WEB) </blockquote>
<sup>1</sup>
<a href="http://www.nae.net/resources/news/547-evangelical-leaders-say-tithe-not-required">http://www.nae.net/resources/news/547-evangelical-leaders-say-tithe-not-required</a>
<br />
<br />
<sup>2</sup>
<a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-evangelical-leaders-say-tithe-not-required-by-bible-49744/">http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-evangelical-leaders-say-tithe-not-required-by-bible-49744/</a>
<br />
<br />
<sup>3</sup>
<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_17784132">http://www.denverpost.com/ci_17784132</a>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-20612906731952474412013-12-13T09:55:00.000-08:002013-12-13T10:16:16.136-08:00Jesus Said Follow MeThere are a plethora
of phrases people use to describe their relationship with God: I am
saved; I've given my soul to Christ; I love Jesus; I am a bride of
Christ; I have placed my faith in Christ; I have a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ; or I'm born again.
<br />
<br />
I would like to
suggest a simpler one; one found repeatedly in the Bible; one Jesus
himself used:
<br /><br />
<b>I follow Jesus Christ</b>.
<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>
Jesus repeatedly
told people to follow him.
<br />
<blockquote>
Another of his disciples said to him,
"Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father." But Jesus
said to him, "<b>Follow me</b>, and leave the dead to bury their
own dead." (Mt 8:21-22 WEB)
<br />
<br />
As Jesus passed by from there, he saw a
man called Matthew sitting at the tax collection office. He said to
him, "<b>Follow me.</b>" He got up and followed him.”
(Mt 9:9 WEB)
<br />
<br />
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If
anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up
his cross, and <b>follow me</b>.” (Mt 16:24 WEB)
<br />
<br />
A certain ruler asked him, saying, "Good
Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus asked
him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good, except one—God.
You know the commandments: ‘Don’t commit adultery,’
‘Don’t murder,’ ‘Don’t steal,’
‘Don’t give false testimony,’ ‘Honour your
father and your mother.’" He said, "I have observed
all these things from my youth up." When Jesus heard these
things, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that
you have, and distribute it to the poor. You will have treasure in
heaven. Come, <b>follow me</b>." (Lu 18:18-22 WEB)
<br />
<br />
On the next day, he was determined to go
out into Galilee, and he found Philip. Jesus said to him, "<b>Follow
me</b>." (Joh 1:43 WEB)
<br />
<br />
“If anyone serves me, let him
<b>follow me</b>. Where I am, there will my servant also be. If
anyone serves me, the Father will honour him.” (Joh 12:26 WEB)
<br />
<br />
“Most certainly I tell you, when
you were young, you dressed yourself, and walked where you wanted to.
But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another
will dress you, and carry you where you don’t want to go."
Now he said this, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify
God. When he had said this, he said to him, "<b>Follow me</b>."
(Joh 21:18-19 WEB)</blockquote>
The disciples are also described as following
Jesus:
<br />
<blockquote>
He said to them, "Come after me, and
I will make you fishers for men." They immediately left their
nets and <b>followed him</b>. (Mt 4:19-20 WEB)
<br />
<br />
Again, the next day, John was standing
with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and
said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" The two disciples heard
him speak, and <b>they followed Jesus</b>.
<br />
<br />
Then Peter answered, "Behold, we
have left everything, and <b>followed you</b>. What then will we
have?" Jesus said to them, "Most certainly I tell you that
you who have <b>followed me</b>, in the regeneration when the Son of
Man will sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Mt 19:27-28
WEB)
<br />
<br />
Jesus said to him {Peter}, "If I
desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you? You <b>follow
me</b>." (Joh 21:22 WEB)</blockquote>
Jesus described his sheep as his followers:
<br />
<blockquote>
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they <b>follow me</b>.” (Joh 10:27 WEB)</blockquote>
There is a tendency to make theological issues
complex. So complex that they become unusable in everyday situations.
How do you apply being “born again” or “having a
personal relationship with Jesus” to any type of daily
decision? They describe a state of being, but there's no action
implied in that state.
<br />
<br />
I follow Jesus. It describes a state of being (a
follower), but requires action on your part to maintain that state
(following).
<br />
<br />
I'm not saying other descriptions are wrong, but
for some reason, the concept that Christians are “followers of
Jesus” has taken a backseat in modern times to other
descriptions. Maybe it's time we revive it. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-54782292169059404362013-11-16T13:25:00.001-08:002013-11-16T13:39:58.950-08:00Women Who Live Life in Reverse<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinujTE8vAKdnWJ7kV0ay0T_9bWy0JMyXF9KfYXJSjSvk9h2sF-8avMGGgRUGgIKv5jovxXfrMA-8oPEtdwunz6nUzGeHk6AvpMW7QKxDmB3xL8W7gFwMJ8CpDHZpvLm_4gpD3cuyi-_dI/s1600/wrongway.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinujTE8vAKdnWJ7kV0ay0T_9bWy0JMyXF9KfYXJSjSvk9h2sF-8avMGGgRUGgIKv5jovxXfrMA-8oPEtdwunz6nUzGeHk6AvpMW7QKxDmB3xL8W7gFwMJ8CpDHZpvLm_4gpD3cuyi-_dI/s200/wrongway.png" width="114" /></a></div>
When considering a
woman as a wife, it's vital to understand how she views the various
stages in her life and how she thinks they will play out over time,
because her choices will affect how your life will play out also.
<br />
<br />
The modern feminist
plan for how these years should be structured goes something like
this:
<a name='more'></a>
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVnjLLjkxLmnLKhiq-3lYo5wky__UgwjboBBac_wHCDi2RQmPYJNf1pIk-hxms4vNb1JgamCs5d9xoyKlMUD8ZTXhqLPiQm4EUhB3Glcbvj8xFYu91Ppp6e-bRmrc-cky7kZ7JCMFbaPA/s1600/wrongwaychart.png" /><br />
<b>18-30 Career Part
1</b>
<br />
<br />
This is the time
women prepare for a career by attending college. Young women tend to
major in softer studies and avoid STEM (science, technology,
engineering, math) degrees like the plague.<sup>1</sup> Despite what
colleges may say<sup>2</sup>, employers are not beating down the
doors to hire anyone with a degree in gender studies.
<br />
<br />
The costs are considerable. The average student
loan debt was over $27,000 in 2012.<sup>3</sup> A college grad
working in Starbucks has little chance of ever paying off that kind
of debt. Unfortunately, colleges are cranking out female grads with
non-marketable degrees. This is the root cause of the college debt
crisis: big loans combined with impractical degrees.
<br />
<br />
This is also the
time modern women are encouraged to explore their sexuality, as seen
in the article <a href="http://www.xojane.com/sex/9-dudes-to-do-before-you-die-i-mean-get-married"><i>9
Dudes to Do Before You Die. I Mean, Get Married</i></a><sup><i>4</i></sup><i>.
</i>If you marry a woman living life
in reverse, you're likely marrying a “9 dudes” girl who
is an alpha widow<sup>6</sup>.
<br />
<br />
How
long of a career are they planning on after
college? Sixty
percent of female college graduates plan on becoming stay at home
moms after they marry.<sup>5</sup>
If they are 22 when they
graduate with a bachelor's and
have their first child at 32,
they are only looking
at an 10
year career before they quit
working. If they take longer
than four years to graduate or go for a master's degree their working
career window becomes event
shorter.
<br />
<br />
Women
living life in reverse go through a tremendous amount of preparation
and incur a heavy debt for a very short career window (one often not
even long enough to pay off their college debts in many cases).
<br />
<br />
<b>30-50
Marriage and Motherhood</b>
<br />
<br />
60%
of women with college degrees say they plan on quitting work and
becoming a stay at home mom when they have children.<sup>5 </sup>This
study was of women who had not had children yet. It fails to take
into account the “oh my God I'm a mother” phenomenon.
This is when a career woman who has sworn up and down that she does
not want to be a stay at home mom holds her child for the first time
and it hits her—the feminist career stuff was claptrap; she
wants to stay home and take care of her baby. I can personally attest
this phenomenon exists, as I have seen it several times. I don't know
the exact number, but I would ballpark it as being at least another
15% of women, which would put the actual number at 75%.
<br />
<blockquote>
75% of women with college degrees will
want to become stay at home moms after they have their first child.</blockquote>
The reality is nowhere near that percentage
actually become stay at home moms. Why? They can't afford it. They
bought the house, the cars, the furniture, and the big screens—all
which come with a debt (a debt that is piled on top of college loans
and other debts run up before marriage). They have been living a two
income lifestyle, and when the baby comes there just isn't enough
money coming in to allow her to quit working.
<br />
<br />
And she's not going to be happy about it. Don't
kid yourself, even in the most liberated of societies the husband is
expected to be the breadwinner; and any financial failures will fall
on the husband's shoulders. You can be bringing home $100,000 a year,
but if you are living a $130,000 lifestyle (which requires your wife
to work and bring home $30,000—less than one third of what your
make) the result will be this:
<br />
<blockquote>
Your wife will blame you (her husband)
for not making enough money to support your family.</blockquote>
Money problems are one of the leading causes of
divorce, and marrying a woman living life in reverse sets you up for
financial problems during your marriage.
<br />
<br />
<b>Biology waits for no one</b>
<br />
<br />
Childbirth is a three legged stool:
<br />
<ol>
<li>Fertility: the ability to get pregnant</li>
<li>Carry to term: the ability to carry a baby to
term and not miscarry</li>
<li>Genetics: the ability to have a healthy baby
</li>
</ol>
Unfortunately, all three of these drop like a rock
thrown off a cliff once a woman hits 30.<sup>7</sup>
<br />
<blockquote>
A woman who starts having children at 18
could easily give birth to 10 healthy children.
<br />
<br />
A woman who starts having children at 30
will be lucky to give birth to 2 healthy children.</blockquote>
That's how quickly a woman's childbirth ability
drops with age. From an easy 10 to a hard 2. You may not want 10
children, but ask yourself: do you want more than one child? If so,
then marrying a woman over 30 is a huge roll of the dice.
<br />
<br />
<b>50-65 Career Part 2</b>
<br />
<br />
When the kids are grown she'll start thinking
about going back to work. Put yourself in the hiring managers shoes.
It's <b>2013</b> and when you look at her resume you'll see:
<br />
<ul>
<li>Her last relevant job experience was in <b>1995</b></li>
<li>She received a college bachelor's degree in
<b>19</b><b>85</b></li>
</ul>
Because she interrupted her career to be a stay at
home mom for about 20 years, she'll have to start over at the bottom
of the ladder. And with only 15 years left until she retires, she's
unlikely work her way up to the level she feels entitled (much less
to the top of the ladder).
<br />
<br />
<b>You Have a Choice</b>
<br />
<br />
Why marry a woman whose life choices result in:
<br />
<ul>
<li>Her under performing in her career</li>
<li>Her under performing at having children</li>
<li>Additional financial burdens</li>
<li>A reduced ability to bond sexually with a man
(alpha widow syndrome)<sup>6</sup>
</li>
</ul>
When you choose a wife, you need to look for this
“living life in reverse” pattern, and decide if it's for
you. How a woman lives her life is up to her, but that doesn't mean
you have to join her in that life. Decide the pattern you want your
life to follow, then find a wife that will join you in your vision.
Follow <i><b>your</b></i> vision for life, not modern society's.
<br />
<br />
<sup><br /></sup>
<sup>1</sup>
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/02/top-10-college-majors-women-forbes-woman-leadership-education.html">http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/02/top-10-college-majors-women-forbes-woman-leadership-education.html</a><br />
<br />
<sup>2
</sup><a href="http://www.brandeis.edu/programs/wgs/resources/careeropps.html">http://www.brandeis.edu/programs/wgs/resources/careeropps.html</a>
<br />
<br />
<sup>3
</sup><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/01/29/more-evidence-on-the-student-debt-crisis-average-grads-loan-jumps-to-27000/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/01/29/more-evidence-on-the-student-debt-crisis-average-grads-loan-jumps-to-27000/</a>
<br />
<br />
<sup>4</sup>
<a href="http://www.xojane.com/sex/9-dudes-to-do-before-you-die-i-mean-get-married">http://www.xojane.com/sex/9-dudes-to-do-before-you-die-i-mean-get-married</a>
<br />
<br />
<sup>5</sup><sup>
</sup><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0</a>
<br />
<br />
<sup>6</sup>
<a href="http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/06/the-slut-paradox/">http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/06/the-slut-paradox/</a>
<br />
<br />
<sup>7</sup>
<a href="http://www.socalfertility.com/age-and-fertility/">http://www.socalfertility.com/age-and-fertility/</a>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-62287928924319358512013-10-26T08:53:00.000-07:002017-03-05T06:03:17.029-08:00A Christmas Carol on MarriageThere is a lot of
hand wringing (particularly in Christian circles) over why young men
today aren't marrying. The answer can be found in the classic <i>A
Christmas Carol</i>, which contains a clear example of why men used
to marry.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Bob Cratchit is
Ebenezer Scrooge's bookkeeper. Early in the story, he is portrayed as
the most miserable of men. He makes little money, and works long
hours for a grueling boss who takes umberage at Cratchit putting even
an extra piece of coal on the fire to keep warm. Year after year,
working the same grinding job. Why would Bob Cratchit endure such a
life?
<br />
<br />
Later we find out
why. Bob Cratchit has a wife and six children. He has created around
himself a warm and loving family. Even though his possessions are
meager and he obviously has many problems with no answers, Bob
Cratchit is transformed from a pitiful character to the luckiest man
in the story, because he is the patriarch of a family.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQfrLj0PU0oY5lD-qtCUWSTaAwmJ9EY5QpQZ-ytDTFZvysRiL-SCLkKiYxB_Jux67jfp7G21cGhk0totLpjxH4Vh0-43SFPfFq2aJOWjj6gEVX_wbnuMc5ClZd8djUNZlBjw7QbSji9no/s1600/christmas-carol-1938-cratchits-2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="394" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQfrLj0PU0oY5lD-qtCUWSTaAwmJ9EY5QpQZ-ytDTFZvysRiL-SCLkKiYxB_Jux67jfp7G21cGhk0totLpjxH4Vh0-43SFPfFq2aJOWjj6gEVX_wbnuMc5ClZd8djUNZlBjw7QbSji9no/s400/christmas-carol-1938-cratchits-2.png" width="500" /></a></div>
<br />
This is why men used
to marry. To form a family. To have a loving wife. To be surrounded
by their children. To raise them. To see them marry and have children
of their own. To be remembered by two (maybe three) generations as
the patriarch of a family (and then to be forgotten in the winds of
time). That's why men married, and why men like Bob Cratchit
willingly sacrificed their lives to slave away in misery to provide
for their family.
<br />
<br />
These men knew what
they were trading for a family: freedom. Even in Cratchit's day men
had options (there was literally a new world to be explored). While
the life of someone like Ernest Hemingway (writer, reporter, soldier
of fortune, world traveler, plane crash survivor, resident of exotic
locales) was unfocused and self centered he also lived life to the
fullest—and on his own terms.
<br />
<br />
Men willingly gave
up the chance to live life on their own terms and dedicated
themselves to a life of drudgery in return for building a family
around themselves. There was even a phrase for this: the patriarchy.
Yes, I know the patriarchy is dead as a doornail, but what then is a
man's motivation for getting married today in this environment?
<br />
<br />
<b>The divorce rate
is 50%.</b>
<br />
<br />
When Rachel Jackson
(President Andrew Jackson's wife) divorced her first husband prior to
marrying Jackson (around 1800), it required a bill to be passed by
the Kentucky state legislature. That's how rare divorce was. A man
entering marriage was assured that both the state and the church were
biased towards maintaining a marriage. That's no longer the case.
Modern society has gone out of its way to remove any obstacles to
divorce.
<br />
<br />
<b>One in five
modern marriages (20%) end up as sexless marriages.</b>
<br />
<br />
A sexless marriage
is a sad, cold marriage. In the past, the Biblical admonition that a
husband and wife should not deny each other sex (1 Corinthians 7:5)
was taken seriously. Not so today. There are even some Christian
ministries (Christian in name at least) that advise wives to use sex
as a means to keep their husbands in line.
<br />
<br />
While some sexless
marriages end up in divorce, not all do. Even if only one percent of
sexless marriages don't end in divorce, when added to the 50% divorce
rate it means that the majority of marriages end up with a negative
outcome as far as the man is concerned. No, negative is too weak of a
word. Disastrous is a better description.
<br />
<br />
I could go on about
the risks involved in modern marriage, but it really only takes these
two examples to make the point:
<br />
<blockquote>
When a man marries, the majority of the
time the marriage ends up as a disaster for the man.
</blockquote>
The patriarchy is
dead. Gone forever. We got it. Men no longer get the rewards Bob
Cratchit got for his sacrifices: children, a respectful and loving
wife, and the assurance that the marriage will last a lifetime. But
given that, what exactly does a modern man get in return taking the
risk on marriage and for the things he gives up when he enters
marriage? Really, specifically...what?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4148434354406894730.post-24755422770665817722013-10-14T17:47:00.000-07:002017-03-05T05:52:34.313-08:00The Wife from Proverbs 5When the wife from
Proverbs is discussed, the one from Proverbs 31 jumps to everyone's
mind. But, I want to talk about another wife—the wife from
Proverbs 5.
<br />
<a name='more'></a><blockquote>
My son, pay attention to my wisdom. Turn
your ear to my understanding: that you may maintain discretion, that
your lips may preserve knowledge. For the lips of an adulteress drip
honey. Her mouth is smoother than oil, But in the end she is as
bitter as wormwood, and as sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go
down to death. Her steps lead straight to Sheol. She gives no thought
to the way of life. Her ways are crooked, and she doesn’t know
it. Now therefore, my sons, listen to me. Don’t depart from the
words of my mouth. Remove your way far from her. Don’t come
near the door of her house, lest you give your honour to others, and
your years to the cruel one; lest strangers feast on your wealth, and
your labours enrich another man’s house. You will groan at your
latter end, when your flesh and your body are consumed, and say, "How
I have hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof; neither have
I obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor turned my ear to those who
instructed me! I have come to the brink of utter ruin, in the midst
of the gathered assembly."
<br />
<br />
Drink water out of your own cistern,
running water out of your own well. Should your springs overflow in
the streets, streams of water in the public squares? Let them be for
yourself alone, not for strangers with you. Let your spring be
blessed. <b>Rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe and a
graceful deer—let her breasts satisfy you at all times. Be
captivated always with her love.</b> For why should you, my son, be
captivated with an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another? For
the ways of man are before the eyes of Yahweh. He examines all his
paths. The evil deeds of the wicked ensnare him. The cords of his sin
hold him firmly. He will die for lack of instruction. In the
greatness of his folly, he will go astray. (Pr 5:1-23 WEB)</blockquote>
In the middle of a proverb on why a husband should
not go chasing after strange women, God tells us exactly who we
should be chasing.
<br />
<blockquote>
Rejoice in
the wife of your youth.</blockquote>
God is talking about marriage, and how a husband
and wife should relate to each other. The word translated as rejoice
here (samach) doesn't mean just be happy. It means to celebrate, make
merry, and leap for joy. That's the attitude you should bring to your
marriage.
<br />
<blockquote>
A loving doe
and a graceful deer...</blockquote>
This seems like an odd description to modern
ears, but in ancient times this was the language of love. The man in
<i>Song of Solomon</i> is described as “...a
gazelle or young stag on the mountains of spices!<sup>8:14</sup>”
And of the woman it is said:
“Your two breasts are
like two fawns, that are twins of a roe<sup>7:3</sup>”
(a
roe is a type of deer).
Just as the <i>Song
of Solomon</i> has an
explicitly sexual message, the inclusion of the deer references here
tip us off to the fact that we should have a sexual mindset about the
following verses.
<br />
<blockquote>
...let her
breasts satisfy you at all times.</blockquote>
Satisfied means to be content with what you have,
but it also means to be satiated. What does it take for a husband to
be satisfied with his wife's breasts? Given the context, I don't
think God is saying to discreetly admire them from afar. He is saying
enjoy them. Look at them; fondle them; roll your face around in them;
kiss, nibble, and suck them to your heart's content. Be satisfied.
<br />
<blockquote>
Be
captivated always with her love.</blockquote>
The word love here doesn't simply mean affection.
We're talking sex, and not just any kind of sex. Captivating hardly
conveys the full meaning of the original Hebrew word (shagah). It is
translated in various Bible versions as:
<br />
<br />
ravished<br />
enraptured<br />
exhilarated<br />
captivated<br />
infatuated<br />
intoxicated
<br />
<br />
At what level does sex have to be that a man feels
exhilarated to the point of intoxication by it? That's the type of
sex that the Bible says should occur between a husband and wife. Mad,
crazy, oh my God I didn't know it could be like that sex.
<br />
<br />
Notice what's missing in these verses about sex
between a husband and wife? Condemnation. The verses that discuss
chasing after an adulteress are full of rebukes and warnings, but
when it comes to focusing those same sexual desires on your
wife...not a word of rebuke. In fact, it's promoted; it's a good
thing to sexually lust after your own wife. This is consistent with
the rest of scripture.
<br />
<br />
The next time your wife accuses you of having a
“one track mind” just look at her and proudly say: “yes
I do.” The Bible never condemns sexual relations between
husband and wife, nor does it condemn a man for lusting after his
wife sexually. That is in fact the one proper place for the
expression of sexual lust.
<br />
<br />
There is also an implied message for the wife in
these verses. How can a husband be satisfied with his wife's breasts
if they are not available to him? How can a husband be captivated by
his wife's love if she is not captivating? Only a woman who is an
active participant in sex is captivating; exhilarating; intoxicating.
Only a woman who is an active participant in sex is the wife of
Proverbs 5. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4