Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[heidi_storage]

Full disclosure: I support colleges putting administrative policies in place if they feel like clarifying consent will enable them to crack down on an assault problem. But in my real life adult world, I would have died laughing if a guy tried to carry that out by the book, and I think it’s even less sexy (and practical) in marriage. Rape is sex when told ‘no’, not sex in the absence of ‘yes’. In my opinion, the idea of affirmative consent, especially at every stage, is crazy. And frankly, if that’s the standard, I’m as predatory as anyone.

I actually agree with about 60% of what the red pillers say about attraction, and with maybe 3% of their take on public policy.

Honestly, quite a lot of your marriage/relationship posts seem closer to “red pill” stuff than do the posts of many on here.

 

[Xantippe]

Honestly, quite a lot of your marriage/relationship posts seem closer to “red pill” stuff than do the posts of many on here.

Yes, that’s what makes the Red Pill hate for BEL so funny.

 

[Estevao]

I think a lot of people don’t like having their beliefs’ origins pointed out to them. They like to think that what their college professor told them is the gospel truth received directly from on high and get upset when you mention how their beliefs actually come from Hegel and Marx instead.

As I’ve pointed out before here, the first feminist was Friedrich Engels. Now you think that feminists who consider themselves thoughtful persons would stop and consider what it means that their cherished beliefs come from somebody who also originated an ideology that caused over 100 million premature deaths in the 20th century. But then again perhaps not because these same sorts of feminists are often completely fine with that many deaths of innocent human beings as long as it is done via crushing the skulls of babies, chopping them up into bits and vacuuming them into a sink. What’s a GULAG when you’re fine with abortion? It’s all life unworthy of life under those ideologies anyway. Enemies of the people for the Marxists and non-persons for the pro-abort feminist.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Yes, that’s what makes the Red Pill hate for BEL so funny.

I find their hate for you even more amusing. A conservative, married, stay at home Catholic mom just doesn’t strike me as a mortal enemy. But, you get more shout outs on Dalrock than I could ever hope to have!

 

[ThePCWife]

I never said that there was.I never called you a Marxist. I just noted that your ideology has some similarities to Marxism. You then claimed that I did not understand Marxism.

At the end of The Communist Manifesto, Marx outlines 10 policies to implement in developed nations. Just for fun, look at how many of those are present either completely or partially in the United States. Now see how many conservatives actually challenge them. You do not need to be waving a hammer and sickle to be influenced by Marxism. You just need to belong to a mainstream political party in the United States. Incidentally, class politics were initially ineffective in the United States. Gender and racial politics have been far more effective.It was a descriptive statement, not necessarily a prescriptive one.No, they would still be just as likely to divorce.Now who said that they had to be the beta’s kids? Also, there have been a number of studies indicating that ovulating women prefer men with higher testosterone levels. However this preference is not so prominent at other times. It would not surprise me if couples with a more beta husband are using birth control, then they stop using it to try for a couple of kids, and then the woman realizes that she is not so attracted to her guy after all.The biological clock is real and ticking. Again, nothing here contradicts Red Pill theory.

Divorce is about finances more than feels. The divorce rate has never been 50% anyway. The rates of passing a baby off on an unsuspecting father are also rock-bottom, contrary to “Red Pill Theory”, which is a confused tissue of just-so stories with not much grounding in real facts and history.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Honestly, quite a lot of your marriage/relationship posts seem closer to “red pill” stuff than do the posts of many on here.

I’m realistic. A lot of liberals and younger religious conservatives both fall into the trap of viewing the world through the lens of “should be”, but I’m interested in how things actually are. It is in fact true that men really do need some sort of ‘edge’ to be attractive, at least to women on a large scale. And no, I’m not talking about being an unemployed felon. It’s also true that most men don’t want bossy, know-it-all women who fights for leadership in a relationship, nor do they want someone significantly overweight. But women aren’t old hags at 30, men don’t hate educated women with good jobs, and even your average 50 year old single woman has far more options than just a life alone with cats.

What I think is discounted by red pillers is compatibility, friendship, flirtation, and all of the deep bonds that exist underneath the external dance of the sexes.

 

[DarkLight]

I think a lot of people don’t like having their beliefs’ origins pointed out to them. They like to think that what their college professor told them is the gospel truth received directly from on high and get upset when you mention how their beliefs actually come from Hegel and Marx instead.

As I’ve pointed out before here, the first feminist was Friedrich Engels. Now you think that feminists who consider themselves thoughtful persons would stop and consider what it means that their cherished beliefs come from somebody who also originated an ideology that caused over 100 million premature deaths in the 20th century. But then again perhaps not because these same sorts of feminists are often completely fine with that many deaths of innocent human beings as long as it is done via crushing the skulls of babies, chopping them up into bits and vacuuming them into a sink. What’s a GULAG when you’re fine with abortion? It’s all life unworthy of life under those ideologies anyway. Enemies of the people for the Marxists and non-persons for the pro-abort feminist.

Or it could mean that some of us have traced the origins of our beliefs and think you’re completely wrong. There is some overlap between feminism and Marixism. However, one could trace feminist ideas in as disparate philosophers as, say John Stuart Mill, who was most distinctly not a communist of any sort.

I think some people make the mistake of thinking that because a certain group that we disagree with espouse a certain idea, that means everything that group says is necessarily invalid.

In point of fact, I doubt that one could point to a distinct “first feminist.” But I wouldn’t consider Engels to be anything more than a bit player, if that.

 

[chevalier]

The nice thing about contemporary Marxists (in my experience) is that they will tell you straight up that they are Marxists. Even better, Marxist-feminists will be even happier to tell you that they are Marxist-feminists.

Yeah, well, real commies usually have the decency to tell you who they are. (Not that they can’t or won’t play head games with you, as the mind-boggling example of Soviet propaganda shows.) It’s the caviar left, the unwittingly marxist-leaning liberals who join the unjoinable, marxist and liberal proposals, who don’t. But they couldn’t even if they wanted to, so confused they are.

It probably all goes back to how all the workers-unite **** was in fact always led by a bunch of intelligentsia with silly ideas, rather than any real working class. Once that spring died out and they realized workers and working classes would not support them (they didn’t exactly want a USSR, now did they), they had to find a new class of alleged underdogs to champion, just so they could maintain their own status as champions. That’s what the left is about anyway.

It is in fact true that men really do need some sort of ‘edge’ to be attractive, at least to women on a large scale. And no, I’m not talking about being an unemployed felon.

Lack of a law degree tends to help, though.

It’s also true that most men don’t want bossy, know-it-all women who fights for leadership in a relationship

Yup. Over my freaking dead body. Not that I have anything (soever) against strong, knowledgeable women who provide some form of leadership (even between a President and a VP or CEO and assistant the relationship isn’t always unidirectional), which constitutes a form of going above and beyond and is obviously so much different from fighting for a leadership position just because of enjoying control.

nor do they want someone significantly overweight. But women aren’t old hags at 30, men don’t hate educated women with good jobs, and even your average 50 year old single woman has far more options than just a life alone with cats.

Beautifully said!

(Also, my two cats agree.)

Divorce is about finances more than feels. The divorce rate has never been 50% anyway. The rates of passing a baby off on an unsuspecting father are also rock-bottom, contrary to “Red Pill Theory”, which is a confused tissue of just-so stories with not much grounding in real facts and history.

Recently, I’ve come across some research showing false paternity isn’t really common, as in it can still be a single-digit percentage among those men who actually have some reason to doubt to begin with.

On the other hand, I’ve always believed children’s DNAs should be open books, no need for any court orders or special permissions or other nonsense for a father to check his (or ‘his’) child’s DNA, just as long as the test is at least 99% accurate. (And I’m just gonna be soooo flamed for this, I already sense it coming. But screw it, I don’t care.)

 

[ThePCWife]

I’m realistic. A lot of liberals and younger religious conservatives both fall into the trap of viewing the world through the lens of “should be”, but I’m interested in how things actually are. It is in fact true that men really do need some sort of ‘edge’ to be attractive, at least to women on a large scale. And no, I’m not talking about being an unemployed felon. It’s also true that most men don’t want bossy, know-it-all women who fights for leadership in a relationship, nor do they want someone significantly overweight. But women aren’t old hags at 30, men don’t hate educated women with good jobs, and even your average 50 year old single woman has far more options than just a life alone with cats.

What I think is discounted by red pillers is compatibility, friendship, flirtation, and all of the deep bonds that exist underneath the external dance of the sexes.

Your last sentence is stuff in those old books SST claims are full of hidden alphas. Women appear to mostly get their culture influences from books, at least among the ones who secure marriage, while a lot of the Red Pill crowd seems to get their culture influences from the worst of 80s and 90s sitcoms and a handful of action films from that era.

 

[chevalier]

• Consent. A lot of people seemed to think that “no sex outside of marriage” obviated any need to talk about consent. One thing I wished people talked about was that consent doesn’t just apply to sex itself - it’s ok, for example, to say “I’m not ready to kiss you” and expect to be respected. This tended to be compounded with a painting of men as largely helpless against their sexual desires. If you believe pushing for more is something all men do, there’s no real reason to get away from a man who constantly pushes.

Christianity explains that better than feminism. Christianity holds both men and women accountable, especially for violence or deceit, but it also rejects self-serving attitudes such as ‘depriving one’s spouse’ or the idea of focusing solely on one’s own desires and fruition of one’s own will, with the expectation of being served and so on.

Feminism, by contrast, just wants to put the woman in control of all emotional, spiritual, intellectual, sexual and other aspects of the relationship and its dynamic and to encourage women to be selfish and obsess over getting their way. Which, not that we’re in a dating forum but anyway, is a mighty unattractive trait for a woman to have, from the perspective of a semi-reasonable somewhat conversative old bachelor.

• Modesty. While I agree with the principle of modesty, a lot of people talked like it was a magic shield that would protect you from the inappropriate attentions of men. As a lot of people here probably realize, it just doesn’t work that way. When it comes to men who lack appropriate respect for women in the first place, a modestly dressed woman is not likely to command more respect.

I’m afraid I need to disagree with that statement. Modest dress does not deter sexual violence, yes. However, it does affect men’s behaviours and especially the liberties they take with a woman.

Also, modesty is about a woman’s respect for herself.

Feminism teaches women to want the cake and want to eat it too. Just so we are extra clear on this, it means teaching women to act on purpose so as to arouse men with dress specially designed for that purpose, and with matching body language and other verbal and non-verbal communication, but selectively act offended when the fish catches the bait.

Now I am not excusing the fish, nope. However, I am not excusing the fisher(woman) either! Both will answer for their sins, God have mercy on them for they will need it.

Christianity explains this better and leaves no room for any proposition that intentionally arousing a non-husband to the point of intentionally leading him to mortal sin (e.g. fantasies, which may well be confined to the brain only and still lead to mortal sin) is somehow not culpable (grave matter in fact). (And, naturally, if a man does that to a woman, as we are sufficiently equipped to do and capable of doing, that is grave matter too.)

There’s also the reality that some bodies are sexualized more in our society than others, no matter how the woman is dressed.

Yes, that is perfectly true. However, it does not excuse the designers and enthusiastic wearers of ‘sexy’ apparel. (Flame me to death, folks, you still know I’m right and you are not.)

• Date rape. A lot of this stems from the previous two points. Sexual assault, outside of the stranger in a dark alley situation, just wasn’t discussed. The general presumption tended to be that it was on a woman to not “tempt” a man.

Sounds like Islam, not Christianity.

However, yes, a woman does have a responsibility not to tempt a man. BUT, and I repeat: BUT, that responsibility doesn’t focus on her being the man’s momma responsible for making sure the big baby behaves.

Rather, tempting is a mortal sin and we all (men included, of course, and yes, including our dress or lack thereof or manner of acting around women) have a responsibility to avoid mortal sin. Simple as that.

One big one is that our brains don’t flip on command from “I like this person and want to spend time with him” to “I should scream and fight as hard as I can because I’m being assaulted.”

Feminism generally leads to assault being understood to mean any situation in which a woman experiences any sort of feeling that’s unpleasant or unknown to her (possibly including loss of control over how her own emotions unfold, including feelings for a man). That’s why we need Christanity, which is reasonable, and not feminism, which is not.

I don’t have to worry that if I wear dresses and makeup it’s going to impact how seriously I’m taken as a logic student

Why should it? When we talk logic, the only thing I care about is whether you know your de Morgans and your Venns and your syllogisms hold water.

I don’t have to be “not like other women” to be in a male-dominated field. I also don’t have to worry that I’m not feminine enough if I do exactly that.

Yeah, well, one thing feminism is right about is society does need to get over itself, a little, admittedly.

A “real man” didn’t want to be challenged or corrected by a woman; he wanted her to accept what he said.

Not very Christian I’d say. Also: boring.

There wasn’t really much teaching that as a woman you should expect a man to respect and listen to you.

Just as much as you’re willing to respect and listen to him. Symmetry has a future.

 

[chevalier]

(And there came down a great flame upon chev and he was all smothered in it and the thread gained 10 pages overnight. Proudly brought to your TVs by CAF Productions, Inc.)

 

[DarkLight]

I’m afraid I need to disagree with that statement. Modest dress does not deter sexual violence, yes. However, it does affect men’s behaviours and especially the liberties they take with a woman.

Also, modesty is about a woman’s respect for herself.

Feminism teaches women to want the cake and want to eat it too. Just so we are extra clear on this, it means teaching women to act on purpose so as to arouse men with dress specially designed for that purpose, and with matching body language and other verbal and non-verbal communication, but selectively act offended when the fish catches the bait.

Now I am not excusing the fish, nope. However, I am not excusing the fisher(woman) either! Both will answer for their sins, God have mercy on them for they will need it.

Christianity explains this better and leaves no room for any proposition that intentionally arousing a non-husband to the point of intentionally leading him to mortal sin (e.g. fantasies, which may well be confined to the brain only and still lead to mortal sin) is somehow not culpable (grave matter in fact). (And, naturally, if a man does that to a woman, as we are sufficiently equipped to do and capable of doing, that is grave matter too.)

I don’t think that we’re really disagreeing with each other here.

What I’m objecting to is essentially this flipped around. From my personal experience in discussing sexual assault, many people assumed I must have behaved immodestly or inappropriately somehow, or scrutinized my behavior for what caused that reaction. And I can tell you from experience that if you go looking into the most innocent person’s life for something to use to blame, you will find it.

So I’m not saying how women dress has no effect. I’m saying there are men out there who have a habit of disrespecting women, and that they will disrespect women even if the woman behaves perfectly appropriately.

Trust me, I’ve been catcalled and harassed in winter up north, in a trench coat, hat, boots, gloves, and a scarf over my face. Some men are just going to do that.

 

[Xantippe]

I think it’s a useful concept but not necessarily a useful law/policy.

As a concept…I think most people have a pretty good idea of whether or not their partner is into what is going on. People can and do communicate without explicitly saying “do x, y, and then z.” And I think people who pressure or coerce others into sexual situations generally know that their partner really isn’t willing. For an obvious example, if one person tries to initiate contact, and the other person pulls away from them, that’s a pretty clear signal to stop, or at least slow way down and figure out what’s going on, even without the second person explicitly saying “no” or “don’t touch me.”

**The flip side, of course, is that one can also threaten without the use of obvious threatening words or a display of a weapon. ** I read a story about a young woman who was upstairs in the house after a party. A man came up and pinned her to the wall and initiated sexual contact. She said she didn’t say no because, even though he didn’t explicitly threaten her, he was much bigger than she was and was already being rough, and she was afraid to tell him no because he might hurt her.

That’s an interesting point.

One doesn’t need to be saying, “I am threatening you” to be threatening somebody.

I think that between people who have an ongoing relationship, there are going to be certain understandings (I am happy to hold hands when my hands are free! You can kiss me without asking! But don’t grab me in the kitchen when I’m holding a knife or handling hot stuff! Also, ask me before starting the intercourse protocol!), but people who don’t know each other that well need to be much more explicit to avoid misunderstandings and (worst case scenario) accidentally raping somebody or being raped.

The better the mutual understanding is, the safer less explicit communication is, and the less familiarity there is, the more dangerous making assumptions is. As they say, assuming makes an *** of u and me…(CAF is totally going to bleep that.)

 

[starshiptrooper]

Your last sentence is stuff in those old books SST claims are full of hidden alphas.

You can look until your eyes hurt but I never made any claims about “hidden alphas”.

Women appear to mostly get their culture influences from books, at least among the ones who secure marriage, while a lot of the Red Pill crowd seems to get their culture influences from the worst of 80s and 90s sitcoms and a handful of action films from that era.

Half right, Demolition Man will always be in my top 10 movies.

 

[chevalier]

What’s this, National Let’s All Agree Day on CAF?

 

[ThePCWife]

You can look until your eyes hurt but I never made any claims about “hidden alphas”.

Half right, Demolition Man will always be in my top 10 movies.

Gilbert was a beta, but you said he wasn’t because him being a beta doesn’t match your own Narrative. And the same thing would happen if I whipped out some other examples, like Touch Not the Cat by Mary Stewart, or another one by her whose title I’m blanking on where the boring, not very physically attractive beta got the girl. And both of those are romance novels. Women aren’t being as influenced by stuff like 50 Shades among the ones who are managing to get married. They read very different stuff in their formative years.

 

[chevalier]

What I’m objecting to is essentially this flipped around. From my personal experience in discussing sexual assault, many people assumed I must have behaved immodestly or inappropriately somehow, or scrutinized my behavior for what caused that reaction.

Yeah, that’s a shame.

And I can tell you from experience that if you go looking into the most innocent person’s life for something to use to blame, you will find it.

Yeah, I’m a criminal lawyer, I would know.

So I’m not saying how women dress has no effect. I’m saying there are men out there who have a habit of disrespecting women, and that they will disrespect women even if the woman behaves perfectly appropriately.

Yup.

Trust me, I’ve been catcalled and harassed in winter up north, in a trench coat, hat, boots, gloves, and a scarf over my face. Some men are just going to do that.

Wow. Looks like some guys somewhere are in real need of a serious talking to. Preferably physical argumentation. I’m so sorry to hear that. I always wonder where those guys come from. It’s beyond me how a man could act like that.

 

[Xantippe]

Now who said that they had to be the beta’s kids?

Non-paternity is uncommon, **especially **among “betas”.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/#.WVVXg9UrLrc

Some quotes:

“What are the real numbers? Zuck asserts that they’re more in the 1-5% range, with 3.7% being a high-bound figure for one study. This varies by culture and socioeconomic group, and the segment of the population being surveyed. Studies which rely on a data set consisting of men who have requested paternity tests are strongly sample biased toward those who have a reason to have suspicions.”

“This survey of published estimates of nonpaternity suggests that for men with high paternity confidence, nonpaternity rates are typically 1.7% (if we exclude studies of unknown methodology) to 3.3% (if we include such studies). These figures are substantially lower than the “typical” nonpaternity rate of 10% or higher cited by many researchers, often without substantiation…or the median worldwide nonpaternity rate of 9% reported by Baker and Bellis…”

“Men who have low paternity confidence and have chosen to challenge their paternity through laboratory testing are much less likely than men with high paternity confidence to be the fathers of their putative children. Although these men presumably have lower paternity confidence than men who do not seek paternity tests, this group is heterogeneous; some men may be virtually certain that the putative child is not theirs, while others may simply have sufficient doubts to warrant testing. Most of these men are in fact the fathers of their putative genetic children; only 29.8% could be excluded as biological fathers of the children in question.”

In other words, 70% of doubtful fathers who go so far as to do DNA testing are in fact the daddy.

There’s a big table of paternity stats with huge variation among different male demographics.

"The rule of thumb seems to be that males of higher socioeconomic status, and from more conventionally bourgeois societies, have greater warranted paternity confidence. Lower paternity confidence among those who are the principals for sensational media shouldn’t be surprising then. But if you’re a Bayesian you should “update” accordingly (if you know what Bayesian probability is, you are probably the type of person who shouldn’t worry)."*

Funny!

“In fact, from what I know about contemporary genetic genealogy they’re reinforcing the the idea that when paternity confidence is high, it is high for a reason. Men who are interested in their patrilineage often get their Y chromosomes sequenced, and it turns out that in societies such as England where surnames have a relatively deep history in some families (generally high socioeconomic status ones) the vast majority of men share the same male ancestor hundreds of years in the past. The balance share many different other male ancestors (usually following a power law distribution) .”

So, the high earning bourgeois betas are doing very well paternity-wise.

Which is what one would expect–otherwise where are all the little baby betas coming from? If alphas were the genetic juggernaut Red Pill theory suggests, there would be way more alphas.

 

[chevalier]

I think that between people who have an ongoing relationship, there are going to be certain understandings (I am happy to hold hands when my hands are free! You can kiss me without asking! But don’t grab me in the kitchen when I’m holding a knife or handling hot stuff! Also, ask me before starting the intercourse protocol!), but people who don’t know each other that well need to be much more explicit to avoid misunderstandings and (worst case scenario) accidentally raping somebody or being raped.

For accidental raping one’d need to be unresponsive, so that’s a bit of a far cry, not saying it couldn’t happen. I can see why even a spouse could feel violated if it happened without prior discussion, not that I necessarily feel it should be regarded as any form of real rape (normally just an honest mistake, but let’s not get into detail with hypotheticals). Otherwise, however, I’d rather people had more understanding than more protocol. And understanding starts with willingness to understand. And it goes both ways. I don’t think one can have a healthy relationship with too much protocol, too many rules etc. Spontaneous display of affection is important.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

–The Golden Rule is much neglected in the manosphere and in far to much of the conservative religious world: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” That applies to women, too. If you have expectations of your wife that you would not tolerate for yourself or would find oppressive an unreasonable, then those expectations probably need some recalibration.
–It’s typical of manosphere men (sadly, especially “Christian” manosphere men) to want a slave, not a wife.
–It’s typical of the “Christian” manosphere to have very little sense of justice, mercy or common sense with regard to what is reasonable to expect of a wife (or children, for that matter).
–It’s also typical of “Christian” manosphere guys to treat any talk of women’s needs or inherent dignity as “feminism” and inherently illegitimate.
–Unsurprisingly, women (including good, devout, chaste, traditional Catholic women) are not lining up around the block for manosphere guys. I’m sure there are some women who wind up with a manosphere guy, and I pity them from the bottom of my heart.

If I were you, I’d spend more time learning about marriage and women from happily married people rather than divorced guys and “confirmed bachelor” types.

This kind of gross overgeneralization, complete with cute terms like “manosphere” is exactly what is wrong with contemporary feminism. This kind of stuff drives men who are seeking reasonable discussion of these issues away.