Friday, May 11, 2012

Weapon of Mass Destruction

I don't mean guns, nor nuclear energy.
Nor do I mean a woman's bosom.

I mean religion.

Yes.
Religion.

Religion as a weapon of mass destruction.

It may seem very odd to hear someone who describes herself as 'religious' to be talking about religion in this way.
Except, it shouldn't surprise at all.

Religion as a tool used for one's own selfish ends.
We have all seen examples of this.

Al Quaeda terrorists who use Islam for their own earthly pursuits.
Cult leaders who use their 'religious powers' to abuse vulnerable women.
Catholic priests who use the veil of The Church to abuse children...
The list is as long as my arm...

I have known people to turn away from religion for life, based on what a 'religious' person has done.
This is sad on one level.
But I shan't dwell on it.

I was going to write a post on the Church's contribution to the SMP.
But since I don't know enough about my own religion let alone any other religion, I shall brood some more over this topic until I have the required insight.

In the meantime, I have been busy thinking about something else.
If this helps, the original title of this post was to be: 'Religion: don't let it be used against you'.

I know many people who are fiercely suspicious of anyone who claims to be religious.
It comes with the territory of being Catholic :-)
For some reason, Catholics more than most, attract this kind of fierce suspicion.
I do understand it. And it doesn't in fact surprise me in the least.
I have been witness to the justification of the most heinous atrocities. All in the name of Catholicism.




I was thinking recently about the particular disdain The Manosphere has for so-called 'religious' women.
I never understood it before.
In fact I was baffled by it.

It seemed to me that on the one hand, these men were in contempt of the 'less than perfect' women (the promiscuous, the unfeminine, the uncouth). Not that anyone is perfect in this world...

On the other hand, they also seemed to be bashing the 'good girls'.
What was the problem?
What gives? I mused.
I couldn't understand it for the life of me!

Dalrock, in particular, is less than impressed with the religious women and their accompanying 'manginas' who are always asking men to 'man up'.
His latest post is but one in a long line of many that address his particular issues with religious, notably, Christian women.
My self-addressed question, as always, was, why?
Why was he so anti-religious women?
To my naïve mind, he was holding up such women to higher standards than were fair.
He was giving these women a heavier cross to carry than they were already bearing.
Not fair.
Or so I thought.

But I missed something else.
Something that came crashing down on my own head as I parted company with a woman who was previously in my 'herd', albeit only ever on the periphery.
But first, I shall describe what I think some men are seeing when they see a religious woman.
And why I think when women like me and Bellita cry NAWALT, it is simply a red rag to a bull.


Women as a group are more drawn to religion than men. This is perhaps a historical and a social given.
This is not the same as saying that women are more moral than men.
Far from it.
But I can see how this distinction can be 'fuzzed' to womens' advantage.
Clever women can do this very well.
And apparently they have.
The problem is, savvy men have caught onto this phenomenon.
And now, all women must pay for this 'sin' committed by said clever women.

Bellita once used the following phenomenon as an analogy for something else - I forget what.
But that 'something else' does not matter and is not relevant here.
What interests me where this post is concerned is what Bellita described, which is, people using 'confession' as a way of absolving themselves from the same sin over and over again.

Now, confession is both an enigma to and a source of ridicule by non-Catholics. I am used to this.
It doesn't bother me (anymore).

But precisely because I am Catholic, I get what Bellita is saying. Very well in fact.

Religious people can use the concept of 'forgiveness' and 'compassion' which are cornerstones of any religion, to their own personal advantage.
In particular, religious women can sometimes use this to corner men into doing their bidding, without requiring change or effort of themselves.
In other words, religion is being used as a tool for one's own gratification, without the other party being aware of it, because it is being disguised as religion, (even though it is anything but).
Problem is, even the most irreverent of people will respect another's religion.
Until said religion is used against them.
And at this point, all gloves are off.
And then the religion becomes the target, not necessaily the person behind said religion.
This has happened before.
Many times in human history.



This is religious disingenuity at its very worst.
And The Manosphere somehow have got wind of this type of thing where it concerns the SMP (I am not sure how) and are reacting rather badly to it.
I cannot honestly say I blame them.

And now that I too have gotten wind of it, I don't know what to make of it.
It sure smells bad. And I certainly wish I hadn't got wind of it.
But it's too late.
I see it clearly.


I don't know why I do, but I find that a person who might otherwise benefit from the comforts of a religion, if denied access to that religion because they have been turned off it by someone using said religion in a disingenuous way, has been done a great disservice.
Others might see this as a 'blessing in disguise', because they might see religion as a hindrance rather than a help any way.
But that only helps make my point.

There is no guarantee that had I not been born and raised Catholic, that Catholicism would ever have attracted me.
But at least Catholicism has enabled me to achieve a certain spirituality that may or may not have been achievable without it. If that makes sense.
So although I am saying that Catholicism may not have been necessary for me to progress in my personal and spiritual life, for me, it has been useful in some undefinable way.
Had I been turned off it at an impressionable age because of someone else, I would have viewed that as an unforgivable offence by that person.
Even though it (like most things in life) is just a tool, not the essence of spirituality per se.
So, to give an extreme example, if I heard tomorrow that my local Archbishop had fathered ten kids by ten different women, I would still choose to be Catholic.
But I would be offended on behalf of those who would be turned off Catholicism by this news.



I now know why some men go into churches to specifically seek out 'the bad girl'.
Because this girl is the supporting pillar of the local nightclub scene on a Saturday night and as such she is indistinguishable from non-Christian women under the cover of night.
But come Sunday morning, she is sitting in the front pew.
Looking like butter wouldn't melt.
And now she is indistinguishable from a true Christian girl.
And when she is challenged about her behaviour, she replies 'God forgives all'. And 'Man up! - I am made clean by God now'.

Not once. Not twice.
Over and over again.

And when I or Bellita says NAWALT, men everywhere are smirking or seething.
Because (they think) they know better.

And this same woman described above will challenge other women if she feels 'judged' by them.
Note I said 'feels' and not 'is'.
Where is your religion now? she will ask.
Why are you being so harsh with me?
Why can't you show some compassion like Jesus did?

When all you asked was, 'Don't you think he had a right to be upset with you when you cheated on him with his friend?' or something similar.
For to themselves, they are unjudgable. Because Jesus forgives all. Repeatedly.
And the rest of the world had better get used to it (their bad behaviour).


Men have their own sins. But I am yet to find a man who can pull off this brand of religious disingenuity.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, if someone suggests Rush Limbaugh as an example of this, I shall say 'fair enough'.
But even this man, despicable as he may seem, is only pointing fingers at others, and not declaring himself to be the epitome of godliness.
In this sense, he is also a hypocrite of sorts, yes.
But not a self-proclaimed-holier-than-thou 'cheat'.
There is a subtle difference between 'you are less than holy' (Rush Limbaugh) and 'I want you to believe that I am holier than I really am' (subjects of this post).

I can't believe the depths to which my disappointment will sink.
Not least in my (now former) friend.
I have seen too many examples of religion being used in this way.
And it saddens me because now, even a sacred thing such as religion is being viewed with deep suspicion by pretty much half of the world's population.
Unacceptable.
And unforgivable.




I have learned to stay away from certain battles.
Because I have neither the desire nor the tenacity to win them.

It is enough to see things clearly.
Then I walk.
Or run.
Whichever is more effective.



33 comments:

just visiting said...

I don't know ST. I don't share the manosphere's view on this. Yes, there are plenty of bar sluts in church, And alcoholics and gamblers, and ex convicts. Doesn't mean that anyone is under any obligation to marry them. But the manosphere's holier than thou "doing god's work" by sleeping with these girls is baloney. Give me a break. Male hamsters abound.

The church is going to attract broken people. It always has. Some are repentant, some may not be. Some may have good intentions, but fall into the same patterns over and over again. That can include wealthy business men too. It just seems scummy to target people with the intention of hurting or humiliating them. If these women are just there to socialize, nobody is putting a gun to these guys heads to sleep or marry them. And if they want to sleep with these women, go for it. (Though I don't think that they have any moral superiority in that case) But proclaiming it as holy work in clearing out the sluts, vanity at best. Talk about turning people off religion.

I worry too that it isn't just bar sluts that they will target in such a humiliating manner. I won't go back to church for this reason. As a divorced single mother, according to Dalrock's crowd and many in the sphere I'm suddenly in the same category as any cock carousel riding welfare baby mamma with six different baby daddies. No thanks. The last thing I want is a bunch of guys trying to sport f##k me at church or spreading rumours saying they did.

Bellita said...

@ST

And why I think when women like me and Bellita cry NAWALT, it is simply a red rag to a bull.

Actually, these days I'm more likely to say, YIALT: "Yes, I am like that."

One of my favorite quotes from the priest detective character Father Brown is, "I am a man, and therefore have all devils in my heart." That was a reply he gave to someone who asked him why a priest who seemed very simple and innocent could have such insight into a murderer's mind. We don't have to give in to temptations, but there's another danger in thinking we're above them and are NLT.

I believe the Manosphere case against religious women is that a woman can try using a late-in-life religious conversion to nullify a past that a man might find objectionable. (Have you heard the term "born again virgin"?) And it seems that religious men who would like to marry religious women are being "conned" into marrying such women instead. I understand why they would be angry. I am personally highly suspicious of converts myself.

Having said that, one of my best friends is a woman who had a similar conversion after a misspent youth. She was in the hospital, being treated for complications after an abortion, when she had a vision of Mary standing by her bed. My friend saw all her sins looking like stones in Mary's hands. And as she watched, Mary turned them all over and the stones became roses. After that vision, my friend repented of her abortion and her past life. She almost entered a religious order (Does this sound familiar? Hahahaha!), but is now married and has two children.

All the same, I understand why a man would see her as potential risk in marriage. But she has been open with her husband about the life she used to lead. It was not a case of the parish priest passing her off a "good woman" to unsuspecting men. But as JV has just pointed out, no one is holding a gun to a man's head and forcing them to marry any woman. (Incidentally, if anyone did, he would very easily be able to get a declaration of nullity!)

The Manosphere also rails against the pedestalization of women that happens in some churches, but I'm less familiar with that scenario in real life, so I can't comment on it.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

You make some points that I neglected to add in the post.

I seem to have concentrated on Manosphere perception of 'church women', and did not mention so much their actions regarding these women.

So thank you for doing that for me!

I entirely agree that it is abhorent to try to 'punish' the so-called church/bar sl*t this way, in the guise of 'doing god's work'.
Somehow I didn't get the impression that this was going on...My impression was that certain PUAs did not feel that Church was off-limits because some bar sluts had found their way into Church, ruining a usually safe haven for good women for whom Church is their natural habitat, so to speak.

But clearly I need some education on this matter.
Wait, perhaps not. I might get queasy 'learning' more about this!

Your last paragraph worries me.
I hope you are wrong that a woman who was once married but who had a genuine reason to part ways with her husband is judged in the same manner as a woman who never married but had a collection of kids with many different men. That cannot be the case, even for The Manosphere. I think where they appear to be harsh with divorced women, this is very much directed at those who divorced for frivolous reasons, of which there are many, and rising in numbers in today's MMP.
But yes, I understand your sentiment on this.
It is rather difficult to know that some criticisms do not apply to you. Because I suspect you are self-effacing and perhaps you are susceptible to a little bit of mea culpa just for being a woman!

I understand, JV, trust me on that :-)

Whilst I do not agree with everything the Manosphere say about women, (and this is not a criticism of their argument - I won't ever totally 'see' what a man sees because I will never be able to walk in his shoes), I can't help but sympathise a little, having seen some particularly crass behaviour from so-called Christian women (who I am in a position to evaluate a bit better than I could a man precisely because I am a woman myself).

In general, though, I find that religious hypocrisy, more than any other type of hypocrisy, is the worst...
Hence my distress on this matter.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

"Actually, these days I'm more likely to say, YIALT: "Yes, I am like that.""

Bell, have you given up the ghost? What happened to the fire in the belly?
:-)

Just kidding.
I think I get it. Some battles are just not worth fighting to the bitter end...I defintely get it.

I love Father Brown and Sr. Steve! Yes, the charm of these two is that they seemed clueless because they were a priest and a nun, so there was always such a surprise in store for the bad guys who learned just how street-wise this duo could be! Especially Sr. Steve - she was amazingly street-smart LOL!
My fav character however was their housekeeper ;-) She was hilarious!

Somehow, the fact that your friend was open to her futute husband about her past is commendable, and for that reason she is not in the category I describe in the post.

What I describe above is the type of woman who thinks she is entitled to a good man, but sees no reason for change on her part, because, you know, Jesus has done all that for her, with no effort whatsoever required on her part. So she continues to eat her cake and have it.
And woe betide anyone who tells her otherwise.

I guess the virtue that is missing in these women (unlike your friend) is...humility.

Somehow this makes a stark difference.

I think I agree with you that pedestalisation of women does not really occur in the Catholic Church. As I once argued with CD, the Catholic Church is one of the most sexist churches ever. And it is unbelievably 'rigid' in its beliefs. Hence the one most likely to remain true to Patriarchy. Which we all know is a better framework for society in general than Matriarchy.
So there might be plenty wrong with the Catholic Church, but I still say 'Amen' to its general principles...

OffTheCuff said...

I grew up Lutheran, had agnostic feelings the last few years, and finally just gave up and officially deconverted in my mind.

Church made me beta. Very beta. You see, they lay out a bunch of rules, and if you are so stupid as to actually follow them, you're a sexual loser.

Church is great if you sin a lot and want to feel better about yourself, though.

Dalrock is right that Christian women are no better or worse in behavior than non-Chrisitan women. I'm just at the point in my life I'd rather deal with honest sinners, than people who pretend to follow a certai moral code, don't, and fail to repent.

just visiting said...

@ST

Dalrock has always been very reasonable with me. 7man and CL as well.

But some of the vilest grossest commenting that has ever been directed my way has come from that corner.

I've tried to keep an open mind, but judging by the comments, how does a woman ever win out as virtuous? The virgins are entitlement princesses, married women are no better, single or divorced mothers are sluts, and apparently widows are damaged goods. (Though commenting on the post that you linked to has them outraged that widows are being put in the same category as single and divorced moms. Which signals to me some mealy mouthed unaccountability when it comes to their position. They'll flip flop when it suits them.)

Trying to defend that makes me feel like the female version of Manboobs.

Bellita said...

@OTC
Church is great if you sin a lot and want to feel better about yourself, though.

Church is great if you sin a lot, period. Hospitals are also great if you get injured doing stupid stuff to yourself. When people make it about feelings, they miss the point. And I don't mean you, OTC, but probably the same people you're thinking of.

On the other hand, I did shock a friend last month when I said that even if all the priests in the Catholic Church were outed as pederasts, I'd still remain Catholic. That is not to say that I wouldn't be completely devastated, because I would. But my faith is not tied to the behavior of fellow sinners but to my conviction that I need to be saved from my sins. And thankfully, the sacraments work ex opere operato, which means even a totally sinful and faithless priest can still administer them.

I'd rather deal with honest sinners, than people who pretend to follow a certai moral code, don't, and fail to repent.

I actually get what you mean. Sometimes prefer being friends with Protestants and atheists because I never mind when they believe, say or do anything that conflicts with my values. They're already "honest heretics"--to paraphrase your point--so why sweat the small stuff? But when other Catholics fail to live up to the Faith, I'm often anguished enough to end friendships. I just can't take it.

One of my best friends is a non-denominational Christian who is also a racial separatist and Holocaust denier. I had a really hard time when he first "came out" to me (particularly when he was disparaging a black friend of mine whom he didn't even know), but I had also come to care about him very much, so I decided not to end things with him. Yet I'd never put up with that sort of thing from a fellow Catholic . . . If you go to the "One True Church," then my standards will be higher.

And for the record, churches have honest sinners, too, and they tend to outnumber the hypocrites. Your point about wanting to be less beta is one thing, but you seem to be committing the apex fallacy here.

just visiting said...

@ ST

Ok, I'm going to eat my words. I've gone through all of the comments on the recent post at Dalrocks and have concluded that somewhere along the way, he's really cleaned up the blog. It's been a while since I've been a regular visitor, and the odd time that I have, I've skipped the comments all together. (Complete cess pool) I don't know if he's moderating or if the guys have chilled out, but the comments are actually intelligent.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

I know why I believe you are such a good woman!
I wanted to commiserate with you about the nasty comments that come your way (and the way of any woman in fact) when I just saw your latest comment.

Thank you for taking the time to check Dalrock's blog again.
I must confess I don't read every or even most of his posts. But occasionally, something makes me sit up...like the post in question.

In return for your good sportsmanship, I will (readily) admit that there are some rather vitriolic comments that seem to emanate from certain quarters of The Manosphere...It seems the tactic is 'shock and awe'. I do not believe however, that women who are really trying are their intended target.
It's funny, I just had a similar conversation with Dogsquat today on his post:
http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/on-blue-pill-expectations/.

He gave an excellent explanation to my 'problem'.

@ OTC,

I agree with you that Christian and non-Christian women are not intrinsically different.
But Christian women should perhaps show a better example. I include myself here of course.
Dishonesty is bad enough. When there is a religious spin to it, everything looks worse.

"You see, they lay out a bunch of rules, and if you are so stupid as to actually follow them, you're a sexual loser."

OTC, I am intrigued by your term 'sexual loser'. Do you mean that if you follow Christian rules, you don't get sex? Is this really a man's reality? I honestly would like your perspective on this.
Or do you mean that with 'Christian' rules a man can't get his usual dose of extra marital sex? In which case is this a massive problem? Dalrock's friends are all over the place denouncing women who have extramarital sex. Given that not all women do, and men say they want a woman with a low partner count, should not (true) Christianity be embraced by The Manosphere?

Care to explain further?
Are you helping to make JV's point above?

Or are you getting stuck with the dishonesty of Christianity which promises 'clean' women for good Christian men for them to discover they are saddled with 'born again virgins'?
Is this an irrational fear that men have, or is it a frequent reality? It would be great if you could elaborate further, to clear up the confusion I have about this.

@ Bell,
As usual, well-argued points.
I agree with you that the dishonest Christians are in the minority. That has to be statistical reality, right?
However, why does it feel so much like the dishonest ones are so jolly ubiquitous? Which makes them attract more attention?
Is this simply a function of their character that they do attract more attention than those quietly going about their daily routine?

In which case you would be right about OTC's apex fallacy.

But...are we both wrong in making this assumption? I am starting to wonder...

dannyfrom504 said...

I'm a practicing Catholic.

I keep religion out of my blog. But God is a very big part of my life. However, I refuse to let religion validate my actions. I do what I do because I feel it's the right thing to do. I believe what believe because I was taught that and have placed my faith in it.

Thank my Mexican/Cajun Catholic mother for that. I stay away from Dal's site btw. I sense bitterness, and well...I've learned something about the sphere being behind the curtain of it.

So I avoid a lot a blogs.

Anonymous said...

Hi,

PVW here. This is interesting; I read the post, and it got me thinking.

Mainline Protestants don't seem to be big on talking about sin, on some level. Is it that nothing is a sin? Some would argue that is the reason why, because we are heretics!

On the other hand, I would argue there is something else going on.

In the Episcopal church I attend weekly, it seems to me that people are very bougie in living lives that give the appearance of being upright and upstanding; nothing is apparent in their lifestyle on the surface to prove that they are anything but godly.

Am I saying they are hypocrites and living ungodly lives? No, all I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe otherwise.

So, there are no single mothers, mostly everyone is married, and no one is howling about they can't be judged for their sinfulness, as nobody seems to be sinful.

For example, I was a sponsor today at the diocesan confirmations and receptions for the churches in my cluster--3 clusters, 200+ people (our parish included), children getting confirmed and adults getting confirmed or received (ie. going from Catholic to Episcopalian).

A fair number were from the wealthy suburbs, and I could see the "leave it to beaver appearing lifestyle" of those parishioners--mothers and fathers with children.

I did find an aspect of the discussion interesting in the post you referenced, that modern American Christianity has had to deal with more and more people having no problem with premarital sex; can any pastor reasonably call out women for it?

Or do they presume women who have premarital sex are only doing so because they are pressured by men to do so or they feel they must to get a man? Can they call out the men? Are the men even there to be called out?

And because they so want to avoid women being shamed into abortion, they support single motherhood.

But this model only works, as someone mentioned, if we presume all Christian girls who have premarital sex are really "good girls" who have been led astray or been taken advantage of by alpha cads.

But the "bad girls" get to hide behind this ideal model as though it is theirs to start off with. Thus, the beta types are pissed off they are left to pick up the mess made by the bad girls and their alpha cads.

Anonymous said...

PVW here, oh and something else again, in my denomination, we are not big on talking about the conversion experience, that one must express to the world that one has been converted and saved. It is a different theological framework.

For me, it reeks of hubris; "are you really know you are saved"? That is why I did not gravitate towards those types of churches when I left Catholicism.

I prefer the humble, "I know I'm broken (whether or not I admit it), as to be human means one is broken; I will just work towards salvation and hope I'm saved."

Spacetraveller said...

@ Danny,

Maybe that's the solution for me too - to keep religion out of this blog!
If only I could manage that...
:-)

But seriously, I think you echo JV's (initial) thoughts on Dalrock very well. You could just avoid Dalrock's blog, I think, because you are a man.
For us women, sometimes even avoidance doesn't solve the problem!

Could Dalock really be described as 'bitter' though? He is a happily married man with children! In many ways, he of all people shouldn't care what goes on in the current SMP. Perhaps he is just in a mentor role...which is a laudable position for an older man to be in.
Or perhaps you are referring to the kind of reader/commenter he attracts?
In which case, sure, some of those can be exceedingly bitter, yes.
Pure venom, I agree.


@ PVW,

"Or do they presume women who have premarital sex are only doing so because they are pressured by men to do so or they feel they must to get a man?"

Yes, of course I have a lot of sympathy for this line of thinking...Of course I do!

I am referring however to the repetitive nature of this and the idea that a man should cater for the consequences of this, because it is his duty. When the woman does not see that she is asking for a lot.
I think Dalrock's crowd are sensitive to this aspect: the fact that these women are using a twisted form to 'empowered Christianity' to bully them. As JV said, of course a man who doesn't want this type of woman need not get involved with her. But the problem is, this is often hidden from men on first encountering a women, and secondly, it galls them to be asked to take on women like this in the first place. Nevermind that they may not necessarily be 'innocent' in all this...but that's the double standard thing we have all come to understand in life. A man's sexual past is not as damaging as a woman's, unless it is so excessive as to raise major red flags for any woman considering him as a longterm partner. Men are judged other ways, just not in this way.

I also think that the good girl who has been led astray by an alpha cad exists. Her attitude is however very different from the recidivous bad girl who is 'not ashamed to say it' to all and sundry, except perhaps the one man who really needs to know.
I think even Dalrock's crowd are astute enough to spot the difference.
But of course, it is always safer for a woman not to count on this happening.

Yes religion is for the broken. We are all broken. I think the more broken, the more religious we can be (hehe).
But somehow, misuse of religion to pull the wool over someone else's eyes makes every other relgious person seem a hypocrite. And that's what causes the resentment, because all of a sudden, broken people no longer have their usual haven. For those who choose not to care what other people think about their religion, that's fine. But there are some people who care too much and get into all kinds of emotional turmoil as a result of this kind of insult to their religious pysche.
As an example, I had a little taste of this when at a younger age I could not bring myself to sel-identify as a convent girl even in situations where it mattered because it suddenly appeared to be true that convent girls were not exactly the angels they were once believed to be. I was shocked and offended...and long after I got over that my sensibilities about this were still fragile. These days I have tough(er) skin, so most things don't bother me, at least not to that degree. But my point is, had I been more sensitive when I was impressionable, I could have really been needlessly hurt.
That's life, I accept that now.
But shouldn't we attempt to correct an ill in society when we see it?

I love your last paragraph by the way.
That's my motto too. At least it should be :-)

If I might just add to that: 'Don't make it harder for me to get to said salvation.'

Bellita said...

@ST
Which makes them attract more attention?

Remember the little girl who took your purse at Mass? ;) I asked you how many quiet, well-behaved children were in the same sanctuary at the same time, and you couldn't answer, could you? Hahahaha! It's very much like that.

@PVW
I did find an aspect of the discussion interesting in the post you referenced, that modern American Christianity has had to deal with more and more people having no problem with premarital sex; can any pastor reasonably call out women for it?

I was going to ask, "Why just the women? Why not both sexes?" (because it does take a woman and a man to have sex), and then I read further down your comment . . .

Or do they presume women who have premarital sex are only doing so because they are pressured by men to do so or they feel they must to get a man? Can they call out the men? Are the men even there to be called out?

It's not just about singles of both sexes wanting to sow their wild oats (so to speak) before getting married, is it? It's a very complex issue, and one that brings us back to OTC's point that church is very "betasizing" to men. In that case, even if the pastors got the majority of their men and women not to engage in premarital sex, the catch would be that the women might not find those men attractive! Calling out the men might just make the problem worse.

But I do think the problem has more roots than just the one the churches seem to be feeding. I don't think a man's ability to get premarital sex would have the inflated value it does now if society hadn't become so darn comfortable and lost so many of the traditional dangers and hardships that used to separate the men from the boys. I once read a synopsis of a John Wayne movie in which Wayne's character, who had struggled for many years to establish and run his ranch, refused to leave it to his grown daughter and her fiance, because he wanted them to have the love that can only come from growing together through hard times. (Perhaps he also knew that unless she could watch her husband struggle to provide for their family, she would not appreciate him as much.)

Discounting the recent recession for a moment, there has not been much of late to allow a decent, family-oriented man to prove his worth to women--or to teach a young woman what is really worth valuing in a man. Today's suburban bachelor rarely has to defend his home with anything more than an electronic alarm system. He's handicapped even before the churches get to him. And if all he has left to prove himself manly is the racking up of a high premarital sex count (however ridiculous a standard), then imagine what it does to his chances when he agrees with the churches that it is a sin.

And I've just realized, PVW, that I missed your point entirely by picking up on OTC's point belatedly! I'm sorry about that and am certain my reply to you will come later in the thread . . . buried in a response to someone else! ;)

Anonymous said...

Bellita:

OTC's point that church is very "betasizing" to men. In that case, even if the pastors got the majority of their men and women not to engage in premarital sex, the catch would be that the women might not find those men attractive! Calling out the men might just make the problem worse.

But I do think the problem has more roots than just the one the churches seem to be feeding. I don't think a man's ability to get premarital sex would have the inflated value it does now if society hadn't become so darn comfortable and lost so many of the traditional dangers and hardships that used to separate the men from the boys.

Spacetraveler:

I hope you are wrong that a woman who was once married but who had a genuine reason to part ways with her husband is judged in the same manner as a woman who never married but had a collection of kids with many different men. That cannot be the case, even for The Manosphere. I think where they appear to be harsh with divorced women, this is very much directed at those who divorced for frivolous reasons, of which there are many, and rising in numbers in today's MMP.

My reply:

But it is easy to see why someone might take that perspective. Nothing in their responses over there were nuanced and so...what are we left to say?

My reply:

I think that post had some commentators noting that men in church seem to be "fags and pansies," totally unappealing to women and seen as inferior by other men.

On the other hand, I don't see all of the men in church like that. Instead, I'm seeing something akin to an earlier movement in American Protestantism, "muscular Christianity," at an earlier time when Protestant theologians were concerned that young men in church were becoming pansified mama's boys.

These men embody an ideal they are teaching their sons. Boys should be raised to become godly men of leadership, ie., athletic, accomplished in traditional male fields, clearly heterosexual.

These types of men are not seen as undesirable; more often than not, they are the happily married men, whether lay or ordained, who are snapped up off the dating market, because women notice and they want to be snapped up! They take pride in being married men with families undertaking leadership roles in the community.

At the confirmation/reception programming yesterday, I saw men who are in one group or the other, so it is a mixed bag.

Anonymous said...

that was just me, pvw

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

"Remember the little girl who took your purse at Mass? ;) I asked you how many quiet, well-behaved children were in the same sanctuary at the same time, and you couldn't answer, could you? Hahahaha! It's very much like that."

So true... Your point is well taken!
:-)



@ PVW,

"These types of men are not seen as undesirable; more often than not, they are the happily married men, whether lay or ordained, who are snapped up off the dating market, because women notice and they want to be snapped up!"

Interesting!

Never thought of it like that before...
So there has to be another factor that beta-ises these men, not just Christianity per se. But the way Christianity has been hijacked by feminism (and now renamed 'Churchianity' by Dalrock's folks), leaving the very same men who might have found comfort in it whacked in the face at the door of the church.

Some recover quickly=snapped up into happy marriages with good Christian girls.
Some take longer.
Some never recover and are the type of men who remain the church 'beta' and whose only salvation so to speak is actually to leave The Church?
Is this what OTC was hinting at?


Is this a good summary of what you say, PVW?
Or have I got it horribly wrong?

Anonymous said...

Space Traveler:

Interesting!

Never thought of it like that before...
So there has to be another factor that beta-ises these men, not just Christianity per se. But the way Christianity has been hijacked by feminism (and now renamed 'Churchianity' by Dalrock's folks), leaving the very same men who might have found comfort in it whacked in the face at the door of the church.

My reply:

As you know, I'm a member of a denomination (the Episcopal Church) that many would say has been hijacked by feminism in that women can become priests.

But has that resulted in beta-ized men?

In my specific church, are you kidding?

We currently have a female interim priest, all the other priests (dating back over 100+ years) were men. Yet, women have had for a while, significant leadership roles, ie., the "church mother," or other women serving on the church governing board (on the vestry, including as the treasurer).

So the men in the congregation have always had a model of male competence in the pulpit. Has that suffered because we have a woman leader or because other women serve on the church governing board and occupy significant leadership positions?

There is a difference between being in a community, ie., a church-related one where men are beta-ized and shamed for being men and one where men are respected for being men.

There is perhaps one man who might fit that category; an older bachelor, never married, he doesn't seem to have male confidence. Where did that come from? I don't know, but not in our church environment. He has served in leadership roles, although he has come across as obnoxious (when he was on the vestry), so people tend to avoid him.

Yet, the other men who serve in leadership roles seem to have more respect as men; they have proven to be competent men who take charge when need be, ie., in their areas of church leadership and management, they prove to be excellent leaders.

They don't reject the women's leadership, they admire and respect them. They appreciate the women's efforts towards building up the community.

The women don't come across as harpies belittling the men. They treat the men with respect and the men treat the women the same way.

So for example, with my confirmation and reception class (adult education) which culminated in the programming yesterday, it began with me chatting with the female minister that there were a whole bunch of people who didn't seem to have a grounding in our denomination's history and theology.

We then decided that it is something we should work on, an inquirer's class that would be helpful towards building the community.

How did we frame it? Not as belittling, but as something beneficial, ie., to help all the members of the congregation satisfy any curiousity they might have. In chats I had one-on-one, I sold it to the men and women as parents, and as leaders in our community.

We had in our class male parisioners who hate reading, who haven't been inside a classroom in years. I think programs like these tend to draw women more, who like to read and talk.

But the men came; they realized that PVW was organizing a program which could benefit them, helping them improve their competence, more firmly establish their leadership in the community, and help as they work with their wives in being spiritual leaders in their households.

I presented this programming as a "family affair," something to contribute towards nurturing their family life.

Anonymous said...

Me, PVW:

I think that it really comes down to theological differences.

The priesthood of believers in my branch of Protestantism sees all baptized members as being empowered to do ministry, and this is not limited by gender--no discrimination against men, no discrimination against women.

Everyone has a role in the life and governance of the church and its ministry--that is what the catechism says.

Going further and considering men being betaized for their sexuality and not following the rules, as I said earlier, no one is running around asking others about their conversion experience and policing them. Everyone seems to live an upstanding and fulfilling life; so who is going to ask about it?

Going furhter, in permitting married priests, the historical documents speak to non-betaization, men's godliness in marriage, if anything, as an example, perhaps, for the other men in the community:

"Bishops, priests and deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marraige; therefore, it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness," 1979 Book of Common Prayer, p. 874, Articles of Religion, no. 33.

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

Thanks for the beautiful description of life in the Episcopal Church.
I really appreciate that as I have virtually no education whatsoever on this church.

So from what you say, it would indeed appear that Dalrock's crowd are not Episcopal :-)

But then again I would describe The Catholic Church in much the same manner as you describe the Episcopal Church and yet I know that some of Dalrock's people are Catholic.
Are these men being 'economical with the truth' to make their point, or do they all belong to other Christian denominations?
Which particular churches are the main culprit here?
I don't feel brave enough to wander over to Dalrock's to ask...but I guess my answer lies in identifying the church to which Glenn Stanton belongs, as he appears to be a particular target over there.

In my last comment to you, I mentioned those men who were lucky enough to be happily married.
What I forgot to say was of course there are lots of unhappliy married men trapped in sexless and loveless marriages with Christian women for whom appearances mean everything...I am sure you know the type I mean.
Those men perhaps have it worse than the single Church betas, no?
At least the single Church beta can 'alpha-ise' himself and improve his lot in life. The married closeted beta is truly stuck...

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveler:

Thanks for the beautiful description of life in the Episcopal Church.
I really appreciate that as I have virtually no education whatsoever on this church.

My reply:

Thanks! I find that because so few know about us yet might have misconceptions about us or Christians in general, presuming that "one size fits all," I do my bit in educating...And especially since the presumptions about the "feminization" of churches means minimization of the masculine, it is important to refute those claims with positive examples.

As the priest said in her sermon this morning as she drew upon her own experience in "mothering," there is good mothering and bad mothering. Good mothering nurtures and does not harm, whether in a church setting (a female minister) or in the home.

It is interesting, but in some more conservative style Episcopal parishes, the female priest is called "Mother," the same way a male priest is called "Father."

Spacetraveler:

So from what you say, it would indeed appear that Dalrock's crowd are not Episcopal :-)

But then again I would describe The Catholic Church in much the same manner as you describe the Episcopal Church and yet I know that some of Dalrock's people are Catholic.
Are these men being 'economical with the truth' to make their point, or do they all belong to other Christian denominations?

My reply:

That is what I'm picking up, that they are members of other denominations, presumably more fundamentalist.

Or at least, in their criticism of the churches they speak of, they are targeting the ones that are more fundamentalist (conservative) and evangelical. These churches might be more prominent in their communities. One example is the Southern Baptist Convention.

Or if they are Catholic, they are talking about an experience they see, what happens when there are more women than men sitting in the pews.

The priests might pander to women's vanities, needs and interests in ways that don't hold them accountable for their behavior; they encourage the "church sluts" in their behavior by not judging them.

But as I said, I don't see that in my "feminized" church. Perhaps that happens in other Episcopal churches, but not in my parish!

I'm not surprised that you would describe the Catholic church in a way similar to how I described the Episcopal church. We are the closest theologically (and liturgically) to Roman Catholicism than the other Protestants. That is why I think it is fairly common to find Episcopalians who are former Roman Catholics.

For example, of the seven people in our parish yesterday who were at the ceremony (confirmation and reception) 4 had been baptized Roman Catholic.

Spacetraveler:

What I forgot to say was of course there are lots of unhappliy married men trapped in sexless and loveless marriages with Christian women for whom appearances mean everything...I am sure you know the type I mean.
Those men perhaps have it worse than the single Church betas, no?
At least the single Church beta can 'alpha-ise' himself and improve his lot in life. The married closeted beta is truly stuck...

My reply:

I agree the single ones have it better...

PVW

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

Thanks once again for your comment.
This is better than the religious education I had at school ;-)

"I'm not surprised that you would describe the Catholic church in a way similar to how I described the Episcopal church. We are the closest theologically (and liturgically) to Roman Catholicism than the other Protestants."

I thought the 'high Anglicans' had this dubious honour!
Are Episcopalians a subset of 'high Anglicans' then?

"That is what I'm picking up, that they are members of other denominations, presumably more fundamentalist.

Or at least, in their criticism of the churches they speak of, they are targeting the ones that are more fundamentalist (conservative) and evangelical. These churches might be more prominent in their communities. One example is the Southern Baptist Convention."


Interesting that you should mention Baptist. This is the only religious affiliation I could find on Glenn Stanton's website...he could well be Baptist.

I feel obliged to point out here that I am not interested in some sort of Christian denominational 'witch hunt'.
I just would like to work out what it is about the dogma of these other churches within Christendom that is causing such a furore in the SMP.


"It is interesting, but in some more conservative style Episcopal parishes, the female priest is called "Mother," the same way a male priest is called "Father." "

Um...calling a priest 'Mother' in this way would feel very 'foreign' to me!
But only because it has been programmed into me to feel weird about it by patriarchical Catholicism LOL.

For me, I guess it's enough to have someone else to call 'Mother', i.e. Our Lady.

Strange how religious programming becomes so deeply ingrained in one's psyche like this...Who was it that said 'religion is opium for the masses' (Karl Marx?)
By this definition, I am chronically stoned, I suppose :-)

*sigh*

Anonymous said...

Space Traveler:

Thanks once again for your comment.
This is better than the religious education I had at school ;-)

"I'm not surprised that you would describe the Catholic church in a way similar to how I described the Episcopal church. We are the closest theologically (and liturgically) to Roman Catholicism than the other Protestants."

I thought the 'high Anglicans' had this dubious honour!
Are Episcopalians a subset of 'high Anglicans' then?

My reply:

You're welcome; not for nothing am I coordinator for adult education in my parish!

I talk about this kind of stuff all the time as we do comparisons amongst denominations, especially in discussing the denominations our parishioners have come from.

And if it is useful for this discussion and the questions you have in mind, I'm happy to oblige!

So at the time of the American Revolution, there were numbers of Protestant denominations in the colonies, and Anglicanism was one of them.

Once the Americans became independent, they renamed themselves the Episcopal Church; this marked the beginning of its distinct development as a denomination.

Yet, the ties to Anglicanism persisted in their own fashion long afterwards, insofar as the major theological developments in 19th c. England spread here--what you refer to as high church Anglicanism.

This prevailed with respect to liturgy (styles of worship began to look more like Roman Catholicism's styles). Yet, the theological underpinnings remained--the Book of Common Prayer.

By the 1970s, that style of worship became softened, not only in high church Anglican parishes, but in Roman Catholic parishes as well. So today, worship styles in terms of liturgy still resemble each other. Again, that is what makes an Episcopal Church a comfortable fit for former Roman Catholics--they "get it."

Now with respect to theology in the 1970s onwards, some American high church Anglican parishes began to become more and more interested in rejecting the direction the Episcopal Church was going into, ie., over women's ordination.

Those who sought to break away or whose individual members left on their own became Roman Catholic or became Episcopal Churches under the aegis of Roman Catholic authority. There is a contemporary trend too, with respect to some seeking authority from more conservative dioceses overseas, ie., in Africa.

Others, like a few I can think of, keep the much older and formal style of worship, use the older form of the Book of Common Prayer (1928 or the 1979 one) but remain within the Episcopal Church.

So it makes for a fun and fascinating diversity of worship; this is why I like visiting different Episcopal churches when I go out of town. In one church you can find a low church style of worship, ie., using prayerbooks and music from outside the American canon (1979 prayerbook, 1982 hymnal), with less of the "smells and bells," (incense and bells). In another, things might be medium to high: more genuflecting, smells and bells with the newer prayerbook or the 1928 one in the highest of the high.

Or a parish can use the forms at different times of the month or at different times of the day, or depending on the season.

The in-between medium ones might use the 1979 prayerbook but refer at certain services to the "rite 1" forms which more closely resemble the forms found in the 1928 liturgy, at certain services and not others. The rite two service is more modern.

Parishes that have an 8am Sunday morning rite 1 service offer these primarily to their older parishioners. These are people who grew up on the 1928 prayerbook. The later services (10am rite 2) then are primarily for the younger folks who grew up under the 1979 book.

So yes, the Episcopal church is a subsidiary of Anglicanism, high or otherwise!

Pvw, part 1

Anonymous said...

I admit, I find it hard to call a priest "Mother," and not because of Mary. I think that is where my Protestantism has taken me! I don't believe I have called any of the male priests "Father," not since I was no longer Catholic. I tend to call everyone "Rev.," ie., Rev. Lisa, Rev. John.

But I know some older Anglo-Catholic male priests prefer to be called "Father." They also tend to wear the more conservative Roman Catholic priests' tab collar for their clerical shirts, so one can barely tell the difference, except perhaps, when they go walking around with their families!

OffTheCuff said...

Too many good questions to answer just now. The captcha here hates me.

ST: "I am intrigued by your term 'sexual loser'. Do you mean that if you follow Christian rules, you don't get sex? Is this really a man's reality? I honestly would like your perspective on this."

The church requires celibacy unless you are married. It doesnt say "hey, take it easy, dont bang everything that moves" (which would make sense), it requires celibacy. The problem is women find male virginity repulsive at worst, and neutral at best, so this policy really just serves to weaken men that actually follow the rules.

I refuse to consider premarital sex with my wife as a sin anymore. Or any consenual encounter with a woman, for that manner. Since I won't pick and choose which sins I'll avoid and which I will indulge, which is hypocrisy, then I have reject the whole thing entirely.

For now, until someone can explain it better to me. Most people don't.

OffTheCuff said...

ST: "Or do you mean that with 'Christian' rules a man can't get his usual dose of extra marital sex? Or are you getting stuck with the dishonesty of Christianity which promises 'clean' women for good Christian men for them to discover they are saddled with 'born again virgins'?"

The first is obviously silly, and the latter I don't really care about.

Bell: "And for the record, churches have honest sinners, too, and they tend to outnumber the hypocrites."

By honest sinner I mean one of two things. One: an honest heathen like me. Two: A believer who sins, but actually repents. My experience is that the repenting part rarely happens. One of my friends is quite a devout woman, but she's cheating on her husband, and she freely admits she has trouble with the repenting part, always has. I hope to de-convert her!

ST: "Some never recover and are the type of men who remain the church 'beta' and whose only salvation so to speak is actually to leave The Church?"

Exactly.

Bell: "In that case, even if the pastors got the majority of their men and women not to engage in premarital sex, the catch would be that the women might not find those men attractive! [.. awesomeness all the way to..] He's handicapped even before the churches get to him. And if all he has left to prove himself manly [actually: just attracting some women at *all*, not going full-on PUA] then imagine what it does to his chances when he agrees with the churches that it is a sin."

Bulls-eye.

Anonymous said...

Holy crap!

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

I see. I always thought 'Episcopalian' was synonymous with 'Church of Scotland' for some bizarre reason.

Thanks very much for your indepth explication.

I think it's great that I learn much more here than just SMP issues!
:-)

@ OTC,

About the male virginity thing, yes, I see your point.
But I think most (sensible) women are not actually repulsed by a male virgin.
The issue, or actually, the fear is, is there something wrong with him, medically-speaking?
I think women instinctively know that a man will always try to get sex. It's a big part of his biology, and it's not cyclical as it is in women, so he's always 'ready'.
If he hasn't so far, she needs to decide if
1. He is asexual (not a good thing for a woman who may have been saving herself for marriage, and wants children).
2. He was just unsuccessful (well then hooray to womanhood in general - and this is not intended as a slight to men at all. This is a salute to chaste women who have 'done the right thing').
3. He could have been successful but for moral reasons chose not to be (what's his number? Um, phone number, I mean :-).

I think only the immature (i.e. very young women, especially in today's 'hook up culture') view male virginity as a negative. Not their fault, they are being egged into this attitude by people who should know better.
When I was young, I always envisaged marrying a male virgin. As I got older, I became more of a realist, because of course I recognise that virginity in men in the age group appropriate for me is almost unheard of. And in fact, should I have come across it, it really would have frightened me, for one of the reasons I mention above.
I really don't think I am an outlier in this regard.
Yes, it is desirable if a man is more experienced than his woman in a lot of different ways, including sexual, but that depends very much on how one views sex. If it is a purely recreational activity then of course it is unsurprising where the mindset of disgust at male virginity comes from.

All the above is from my female perspective.
If I try very hard to see a man's point of view on this however, I can 'get' that a male virgin would lack a certain confidence, yes, in a way that a female virgin would not. Because of the innate differences between the genders. So yes I guess Bell is right when she says that a man who has not had premarital sex is somewhat unattractive to women. But I think it's really a case of 'cause and effect' playing a role. He does not become attractive because he had premarital sex (although why this might be the case may depend on a woman sharing my alternative view of 'preselection' as depicted in the post 'Preselection: A different take').
Afterall, the confidence he needed to get said premarital sex would have had to have preceded said premarital sex in order to earn him this, no?
:-)

I am getting my knickers in a twist on this.
Sorry.
I accept that it is hard for a man in this situation.
Lots off 'catch-22s'.
I leave the locker room now...

@ NC,

:-)

Nice pun...

Bellita said...

@OTC
By honest sinner I mean one of two things. One: an honest heathen like me. Two: A believer who sins, but actually repents. My experience is that the repenting part rarely happens. One of my friends is quite a devout woman, but she's cheating on her husband, and she freely admits she has trouble with the repenting part, always has. I hope to de-convert her!

Oh, you passionate missionary! ;-) I would hope for true repentance for her! But of course I'd say that . . .

Just so you know where I'm coming from OTC, I don't really mind people who go through the motions of repentance but don't actually seem to mean it, because the fact that they try at all means that they know in the back of their minds that what they're doing is wrong. You seem to think that unless someone is 100% committed, it does not count. For me, even 0.0001% is enough for hope. And I really believe even the most half-assed attempt to be good will count for something at the hour of one's death.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

"For me, even 0.0001% is enough for hope. And I really believe even the most half-assed attempt to be good will count for something at the hour of one's death."

Amen to that, Bellita. Amen to that.
Perhaps I should just stop complaining about other people 'ruining' things, including the SMP for the rest of us and concentrate more on my own salvation.
Which is ultimately the only thing that counts...

As ever, you drag me by the nose to the important issues :-)
Thank you for that reminder.

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said...
@ PVW,

I see. I always thought 'Episcopalian' was synonymous with 'Church of Scotland' for some bizarre reason.

Thanks very much for your indepth explication.

I think it's great that I learn much more here than just SMP issues!
:-)


My reply:

You're welcome. It is funny you mentioned that about the Scottish Church. As far as I understand it, when the American church was getting on its feet, it went to the Scottish Episcopal Bishops to have bishops consecrated for the American Episcopal Church:

"the Scottish bishops consecrated Samuel Seabury as the first bishop in the United States. It was a significant act. Before the establishment of the United States, following the War of Independence, clergy serving in America had been ordained in London. The clergy of Connecticut elected Samuel Seabury as their bishop and he sought consecration in England. The oath of royal supremacy proved too difficult a problem, however, and he came to Scotland and was consecrated in Aberdeen on 14 November 14 1784, the first Anglican bishop to serve outside the British Isles. It was the beginning of the world-wide Anglican Communion of Churches."

So today, the Scottish Episcopal Church is its own national church, the same way the American Episcopal Church is its own national church; each has ties to the Church of England and the entire Anglican Communion.

On another note, I thought you would find the interesting as a former convent girl:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/nyregion/strict-but-trusted-sister-dolores-is-irreplaceable-at-fontbonne.html?_r=1&hpw

I wasn't a convent girl, but a number of girls from my Catholic middle school (grades 6-8) went on to Catholic high schools--they were convent girls.

As for salvation:

Donnie McClurkin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3ewPHaPBfA

Take care,

PVW

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

Aha, so there is a Scottish connection!
:-)

The article reminded me so much of my own convent headmistress (God rest her soul).
Nice trip down memory lane for me.

Thanks also for Donnie McClurkin's song.
I am sure others enjoyed it too.

OTC said...

b: "I don't really mind people who go through the motions of repentance but don't actually seem to mean it, because the fact that they try at all means that they know in the back of their minds that what they're doing is wrong. You seem to think that unless someone is 100% committed, it does not count. For me, even 0.0001% is enough for hope. And I really believe even the most half-assed attempt to be good will count for something at the hour of one's death."

Thats so nice of you, but, it means that our actions don't really count for much. You can spend your entire life in sin and with no remorse, and still be saved. At no point does it cross the line. Well, if that's the case, then I'm going to do the same.

In other words, we *shall* sin so grace abounds.

I had no problems being a "a good boy", so long as I was under the impression other people were generally good, and that my efforts were respected.

Well, I was surprised to find out neither are true.