Tuesday, November 26, 2013

MGTOW - It's for the (non)Children

I continue to get emails and messages from Christian men concerning my opinion of Christian MGTOWs. Most still believe I wrote the previous posts about MGTOWs. I didn't, RLB did, but I understand the confusion. It doesn't much matter, I agree with him on everything he's written about it. In one recent email, a married, Christian, father of two sons explains his support of MGTOW based on what he's witnessed happen to his brother. That's understandable. What alarmed me was him saying if he had learned what he has earlier, he would not have gotten married. I presume this to mean he would not have had his two sons either. Does the fear of going through the pain of losing one's children warrant the response of not having children at all?
 ...the one thing that women seem to completely ignore when discussing MGTOWs concerns is: LOSING ONES CHILDREN. And yet to most men, this is the only REAL ISSUE!
I'm married, and have two sons, and my marriage is pretty darn good.  But I must tell you honestly, I feel somewhat like a guy who just rode a bicycle across a busy four lane highway while wearing a blindfold. I look back now, take the blindfold off, and think "holy ****, I'm really lucky I didn't get smashed to chopmeat with that stupid thing I just did!"
  I love my wife and kids, but If I had the knowledge of the nasty side of female nature, and how it is for all practical purposes ENCOURAGED by family courts, I am sorry to say I would NOT have gotten married. And I cannot in good conscience allow my sons to entertain any illusions that marriage as it currently exists, is anything other than playing Russian roulette with 3 bullets in a six-shot revolver.
Many messages I get ask me why I even care about the issue. The extent to which I care about the issue is I do not approve of MGTOWs proselytizing against marriage on my blog (or any blog that is written for the audience of Christian married women - for those not my own, allowing this behavior is at the discretion of the blog owner, as is their allowing my opinion on it). Also, for my son, it is not a lifestyle I support. I know, for him, 1 Corinthians 7:9 applies:
 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
I also know he looks forward to having children.
 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them;
They shall not be ashamed,
But shall speak with their enemies in the gate. -
Psalm 127:3-5
I've been asked to try to see the rationale in the decision for men to GTOW and not have children because of the risk of losing those children. Here is where I need help. I am not a mathematician, nor a statistician; however, looking at the risk based on numbers, I know the man who emailed me is wrong with his "playing Russian roulette with 3 bullets in a six-shot revolver" statement. The risk is not 50%.

So what is it?

What is the likelihood  of experiencing the loss of his children if  he is a Christian man, has children with his wife, does not initiate divorce, and is not unfaithful? These parameters, of course, being things a man can control. The numbers I've come up with are between 10% and 20%. Eight out of ten Christian men who marry Christian women, have children with them, do not initiate divorce themselves and are faithful will not face the devastation of losing their children.

My opinion is the Christian MGTOW movement is fear driven and therefore not rational in and of itself for Bible believing Christians. I am also of the opinion that the actual risks have been blown out of proportion as an emotional response to the devastation some men have experienced. Something that may be understandable, but simply is not rational.

Rules for commenting:
- you are a Christian
- you stick to the topic - to explore the actual risk of a man, using the parameters above, having his children taken from him.
- this is not a post about women or your opinions of them. This is about children, the men who want to have children but find it rational to not get married and have children due to the risk of losing those children. The risk I've assessed as 2 out of 10 and am interested in reading any other hard statistics available.
- Keep in mind I find not having children for fear of losing those children about as ridiculous as the woman who aborts her child because she fears the baby will die of hunger.

Edit - No anonymous comments

50 comments:

  1. Would it be out of bounds to suggest that when MGTOW they are capitulating entirely to the stated goal of feminism and not helping men or society one bit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just added an edit that no anonymous comments will be permitted. Please choose a name.

      This is a bit out of bounds from the discussion I'd like to have but not by much. I, of course, agree that it doesn't help society, and I don't think it can be disputed that it does not help men who desire to have progeny of their own.

      Delete
  2. I tried to log in but couldnt get it to take. Im not sure how to do so here. Feel free to delete the comment

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's fine, I'll just call you Nevada.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  3. You can call me any state but California

    ReplyDelete
  4. SD,

    I think that your conclusion of a 10 to 20% risk factor is too low. The majority of stats that I have read say that Christian divorce rates are the same, if not slightly higher than the worlds. This link most closely supports your position: FactChecker: Divorce Rate Among Christians. However this one does not: Research suggests American divorce rates are highest among "Bible-believing" Christians . As this article points out Christians question divorce rates of faithful the answer to the question may have more to do with who is asking the question and what method they are using for the poll. It appears that there is a bit of "it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is going on. As in who really "is" a Christian.

    What I get from all of this is that if you take people at their word, i.e. they say they are a Christian , but they are not serious about it, you're 50% or better likely that you are getting a divorce. If they are actually a devoted Christian the chances she will bail out and destroy your life drop to about 20 to 30%.

    So depending on how you do the stats (and assuming your original perimeters), a young man either has a 1 in 3 chance of getting screwed over by getting married or a 1 in 2 chance. You might counter that none of the articles that I linked controls for "who initiated the divorce". This is true on its face. I would offer two counter points: 1. in the US women initiate most divorces, 2. men value loyalty to such a high degree that they tend to only initiate divorce when pushed over the edge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was using a 45% divorce rate
      If you use the 50% divorce rate it does seem to be a 1 in 3 chance.
      75% of divorces are initiated by women, 75% of those are not due to infidelity, 80% of the time women get custody.
      I haven't considered the reasons men file for divorce. Especially considering this is about whether or not it is rational for men to avoid marriage for fear of losing his children.

      I'm also not convinced that men who go through divorces where they lose custody don't still have valuable relationships with their children. Considering most of his life will be spent having an adult relationship with those children. I do understand how painful it would be not being in the child's life before they are adults but again my question is is it rational to fear that pain so much that you would miss out on 60 years of having an adult relationship with your children and grandchildren.

      Delete
    2. I forgot to add that in my earlier conclusion, I was also considering having children in a marriage decreases the divorce risk by 24%.

      Delete
  5. A better analogy will be Russian Roulette with your children. Are you willing to let them play? Just one bullet, but would you let it happen? Now a man has to pour his life, heart and soul into his kids, then play a game of RR. If he loses, there they go. Too bad, so sad, man up. Are you willing to risk that much emotional bonding and investment for a fifteen percent chance that they will be ripped away?

    The Shadowed Knight

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, your only considering the children's childhood, which is fine. I know this is something you believe to be completely rational, TSK.

      Delete
  6. Psalm 127:3-5
    "3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him. 4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. 5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate."


    I wonder why your translation omits sons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't omit "sons", it uses a
      different translation of "ben" the same translation that is used in many other places as well.

      Delete
    2. Hebrew, like most languages that have gendered nouns, uses the masculine form of the plural when the gender is mixed.

      Modern Hebrew mostly uses 'yeladim' for children, but Biblical Hebrew seems to have preferred 'banim'.

      Delete
    3. The psalm actually makes sense when sons are considered. As they are the ones that contended with the enemies in the gate in support of their father. Or as warriors fighting to protect Israel from foreign invaders.

      Moreover in the patriarchal culture of Israel. I think the translation was accurate in portraying the importance of sons in Israel.

      Delete
    4. What is your point and what does it have to do with the subject here?

      Delete
  7. I will throw my 2 cents in, with the admission that I'm not a member of the MGTOW movement.

    As much a concern for me, if not more of a concern, than the likelihood that my children will be taken away from me in a divorce is the damage the divorce would inflict on them. I don't think it necessary to repeat here just how awful an experience divorce is for children, and how it impacts them the rest of their lives.

    However, the problem with children being taken away is that the mother (who gets custody 90%) of the time then gets the opportunity to indoctrinate the kids. She can tell them the worst lies about her ex-husband, and he might not be able to refute them. This could poison the relationship between father and children, and thus carry well past when they turn 18. Not sure how frequent this is though. It is a concern, but I'm not sure how much of a rational fear it is for a man who is careful in selecting his wife.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've read that fathers get custody 20% of the time. Dalrock's chart reflects it was 18% in 2009.

    This article indicates the tides may be changing:
    "More Fathers Are Getting Custody in Divorce. ...an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek such custody in a disputed divorce are granted it.

    The concerns you mention of a woman indoctrinating her children...again, like you said, you're not sure how often this happens. To deny oneself a personal desire to have children based on this possibility without knowing how common it is outside of some anecdotal stories is irrational, it is a decision made out of fear - by a Christian man. How many Bible verses should I quote with what God has to say about fear?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for continuing to speak out against MGTOW.

    I agree that this "movement" is largely based on fear, and, for those men who claim to be Christian, it is obviously disobedient to the Word of God. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6). Turning to one's own way is synonymous with sin and a rejection of the way of God.

    In addition, of course, there is the issue as to how these men will handle their normal sexual desires. Marriage is the only Biblical option for those who burn, as mentioned in the OP. A man's credibility as a professing Chrisitan is hampered by the sexual sins (I won't mention specifics) in which he will undoubtedly engage if he rejects marriage.

    Further, without a wife, his family line will die out. From a Biblical perspective, this is a tragic thing. It will weaken the church and Christianity overall, as numerical strength will be diminished. MGTOWs' lives are defined by fear, which is basically a failure to trust in God. They cannot and will not see beyond themselves. God will hold them accountable for this.

    ~Lady Virtue

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marriage these days, even in the church, is hardly protection for a husband against sexual sin. The sheer number of women writing "Christian" books and blogs encouraging women to use denial of sex to generate compliance in her husband is mind boggling to me. I've definitely run into a few men over the last few years who are so frustrated by what their marriage has devolved into that they'll actually admit out-loud that their wife hasn't had sex with them in 6 months or more.


      "Further, without a wife, his family line will die out. From a Biblical perspective, this is a tragic thing. It will weaken the church and Christianity overall"..."They cannot and will not see beyond themselves. God will hold them accountable for this."

      Facing a 50% chance of his wife blowing up the marriage, teaching the kids to hate him, and raising them to be as unbiblical as she is hardly helps the church either. But it makes perfect sense to blame that completely on the husband. When most single women in the church show no desire to actually obey God's word, and the pastors encourage this to keep the pews full, why should a man marry harlots like these when he knows there's very little chance of her actually living up to the vows she would make at the wedding.

      Delete
    2. I guess my point is that fewer men would choose to GTOW if more women would actually spend more effort being someone worth marrying than they do telling men how horrible they are for not marrying the women they have to choose from.

      Delete
  10. "What alarmed me was him saying if he had learned what he has earlier, he would not have gotten married. I presume this to mean he would not have had his two sons either. Does the fear of going through the pain of losing one's children warrant the response of not having children at all?"

    I think you view that statement from a different perspective than he did when stating it. As a man, I hear a statement that is independing of knowledge of his kids. If he'd known how bad things can go in a marriage, and the perceived odds of it, he probably would not have gotten married at all. Pre-marriage, he wouldn't have had his sons, but he had the capability of having seen more marriages go disastrously wrong. Whether that's a valid application of that data is another matter. But most men tend to be innately rational about things, and at some level view everything in terms of 'risk vs. reward'.

    I do think the perception of those risks are magnified by the fact that in most churches I've attended (thankfully I finally found a good one), the man can expect the pastor to back the wife if she's cut him off, and even fully support her for divorcing him if he didn't make her feel loved 24/7.

    If the organization that's supposed to be part of your support system appears to be anything but that, it seem entirely logical to me for a lot of men to look at that and decide "why bother". It may not be right. But it certainly seems logical.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Facing a 50% chance of his wife blowing up the marriage

    This isn't true. It is not a 50% chance.

    teaching the kids to hate him, and raising them to be as unbiblical as she is

    Without a statistical analysis of the likelihood of this happening, I could match you anecdote for anecdote of the opposite happening.

    But it makes perfect sense to blame that completely on the husband.

    No one here has.

    When most single women in the church show no desire to actually obey God's word, and the pastors encourage this to keep the pews full, why should a man marry harlots like these when he knows there's very little chance of her actually living up to the vows she would make at the wedding.

    Again, I am not discussing who a man should choose to marry. I know that what you described here does not apply for most women or most churches (even your own as you've stated it above).

    When you say there's very little chance she'll live up to her vows, you do realize the thousands of variables that go into that. What do you consider a little chance? From the numbers I've gathered for Christian men who marry Christian women, have children with them, do not initiate divorce themselves and are not unfaithful, the "little chance" is 70%.



    ReplyDelete
  12. I guess my point is that fewer men would choose to GTOW if more women would actually spend more effort being someone worth marrying than they do telling men how horrible they are for not marrying the women they have to choose from.

    Being told one is making decisions that are not rational is not the same as being told one is horrible. You have demonstrated the fabricated rhetoric that men are listening to from this Christian MGTOW movement.

    ReplyDelete
  13. But most men tend to be innately rational about things, and at some level view everything in terms of 'risk vs. reward'.

    When Christian men tout MGTOW as a rational life choice for someone who a) burns for women and b) desires children, he ignores the available evidence that quite often the reward was worth the risk.

    When do we ever get rewarded for choosing fear?

    How different it would have been for the man to have emailed me saying, "Though my brother went through a terrible experience, and learning about the negative nature of women does help me see that I navigated some pretty big risks in my own marriage, having the sons that I do has been such a blessing (Psalm 127:3) that I can wholeheartedly say it has been worth all the risks I've taken."

    How much does it honor God for us to see that which He has given us have been blessings from Him? How ungrateful to say, "I'd rather not have those blessings if there is a chance I might lose them."

    ReplyDelete
  14. One in three, or barely better, if you want to be precise. If three men do everything right, one of them will still have to face this. I would say that facing a one in three chance of divorce and--if the custody statistics are what you say--a one in four chance of losing your children, a rational case can be made against marriage.

    You already tried to tell men that they are terrible people, and it blew up in your face. Now you try a different tack. The attitude behind is the same. Being told that a decision is not rational from someone who was calling the same decision horrible not too long ago leaves little doubt where you stand on the matter. Rhetorical flourishes change, the message has not, since we are considering fabrications.

    Plenty more besides you are sounding the Man Up cry. That tried and failed. When we hear the Woman Up, we will see. Why have a helpmeet that is encouraged to be a saboteur?

    The Shadowed Knight

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many of my blog posts should I list, TSK, that have the Woman Up message? How many real life anecdotes would satisfy you? How many women would you like to know about who remain married to their husbands (a couple of which did commit adultery because of the Woman Up message I delivered to them?

      Nothing has blown up in my face. How odd that you see it that way. Which human's opinion of me, a married Christian woman, should matter to me again? That's right, my husbands and his alone. I honor marriage and what God calls of me in marriage by submitting my opinions to align precisely with my husbands. It's unsurprising to me that you do not understand this.

      Delete
    2. You already tried to tell men that they are terrible people

      Where? Where have I said men are terrible people? How absolutely deceptive of you.

      Delete
    3. That you only intermittently call out to Man Up is drowned out in the hue and cry of the rest of the country. Anecdotes are not going to satisfy me. I have seen the other side of that system, for every wife that stays with her husband at your urging, I have seen one leave her man after doing her level best to level him. I have plenty of anecdotes of my own. The man shot by his wife, the man that lost his children, the man beaten by his wife and arrested for having the temerity to block his face.

      When SSM went down and the commenters came here, you had a chance to reach them. Admittedly, it was before my time, but you decided to get rid of them. You set about with the intention of attacking them and driving them off, by your own admission. You had an audience, and you lost them.

      I understand you far more than you think. It really is rather easy to do. You will look at my first paragraph and you will see me wanting the impossible, never willing to be satisfied. You will probably miss the intent behind it, the context. The obvious retort is that I am demanding perfection, that I want what can never be. Obvious, but wrong.

      The Shadowed Knight

      Delete
    4. A woman calling me deceptive. Oh, the irony. Try reading the MGTOW posts your husband wrote at your urging. Then think of why the MGTOW do not listen anymore. The tone was... aggressive, we shall call it. Hostile, belligerent, combative; these would also fit. Shame and insults meant nothing to them, so now you change the tone. That is the only thing that seems to have changed.

      Oh, and it is your blog, so I am not providing links. You can find it yourself. There. There you said those men were terrible people.

      The Shadowed Knight

      Delete
    5. What we are left with when the anecdotes fly is statistics. You repeatedly admit that a 70-80% chance of a Christian man, married to a Christian woman, who have children together, who doesn't commit adultery, to not have his children ripped away from him is not good enough to take the risk.

      That is fine for you, TSK. It is not rational. It is decision based on fear.

      I addressed an issue that I've gotten contacted about and answered to it. I am not interested in a commentariate who believe I, my husband or my marriage to be exceptional. We are not. We are normal Christians.

      I do not write for an audience. It was requested of me over a year ago, by several of the women I have mentored, to write. RLB agreed that we should write down the lessons we have learned in life as a digital keepsake for our children and grandchildren to read.

      I'm quite confident you do understand me. You comment much like a woman does which reveals you tend to be a gamma socio/sexually. A woman operates much of her life out of fear. It is something that is very difficult for us to overcome, impossible without God.

      Feminism insists that because the worst case scenario has ever happened to a woman, a law must be written in order for it to not happen again. The "What If's" in life completely negate for them the Truths of God's Word. I see many parallels to this with what Christian MGTOWs discuss.

      Christian women, in order to not be in sin, must never divorce their husbands. There is no Biblical support for it. So Christian feminists try desperately to insist God does not say what is clearly written. Some go so far as to say the Bible is not the Word of God, that it was written by men for men.

      If a man trusts God, that His Word is the Truth, then with full confidence he may marry a woman knowing she has no Biblical grounds to divorce him. What should we spend more time doing? Encouraging men to not marry women, telling men to not take the risk, or should we be more focused on helping women to see what believing the Bible is the written Word of God actually means for her (it means she must not divorce her husband). I have never been interested in having a commentariate who focuses their comments on the former.

      Delete
  15. I believe that the whole conversation is predicated on the wrong way to live your life. I have children because I wanted to have children. The question then became, "How do I make sure that my children have the best life I can give them?"

    Under just about every circumstance, that means that they live in a home where I lead them. But if that ever changes, I hope that I will have the strength and courage to lead them to a life that continues beyond my care.

    In any case, assessing the odds was never a factor in whether or not I go forward - it is only a factor in how I go forward. Because both marriage and fatherhood are expressions of love and hope. Without love or hope, neither option makes sense, because relationships are investments in the future. And in my case, I believe that the future may be grim, it may be dark - but I will not go into it without doing what I can to make it worthwhile.

    Chances of divorce? Irrelevant. It is an attempt worth making, regardless of the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two verses come to mind when I read your comment:
      1 Corinthians 13:13
      1 John 4:18
      There are more...plenty more. Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

      Delete
  16. @TSK
    The tone was... aggressive, we shall call it. Hostile, belligerent, combative; these would also fit
    What's funny to me about you saying this about RLB is that this is how he deals with me now when I am in rebellion to God. It is this very aggressiveness and hostility he had when I was living life aligned with the enemy that woke me up. Fearing that he was right, that I was going down a very sinful path I cried out for God to reveal the Truth to me.

    There's a lesson there. Especially for men who marry women like me (the rebellious type). There is much hope.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The best you can offer is still a worse chance than RR, and at worst is two bullets. You did not answer my question earlier. Would you play RR with your children? In another way, would you go through with a business deal that had a 25% chance of leaving your family destitute?

    RLB deals with you, a woman, in a certain manner. That is how he reached you because that is how one deals with women. The application or threat of force or abandonment. That is not the way to talk to men if you want to do something other than infuriate them. I talk to you in a certain manner because of the same thing. Know to whom you speak, and speak accordingly. Language is important, because what you say does not matter so much as what they hear.

    MGTOW Is necessary, as a punishment for the women who will not come about on their own. It is the stick to the carrot of submission. Appealing to the better nature of women has failed, because they do not have one if not raised to it. They must face consequences for the bad behavior that has gone on far too long. It is a tool, one that can be discarded once it serves it's purpose. Most Christian MGTOW are not opposed to marriage in the abstract; they are rightly disgusted with the current options available to them. Fix the structural issues, and they will return.

    The Shadowed Knight

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your RR question is the fallacy of false equivalence. My father is one of millions of men who can indeed testify that divorce and loss of custody does not equate death. And suicide is always one's own choice and not a required outcome.

      We also wouldn't change a thing about the business RLB did own and it's 100% outcome of him having lost a quarter million dollars. We wouldn't change a thing during the times when we were, as a family, financially ailing. We would never say we were destitute, we do not believe such things. We know 50% of small businesses fail within the first year. We knew that going into several business ventures, including the million + dollar one where we lost substantially. We don't live life based off of fear. One wonders how you even walk out your door everyday.

      Your opinion is that MGTOW is necessary. Ours is that it is irrational for a Christian man who desires children.

      That women are sinful creatures steeped in rebellion is a condition of their humanness which I believe God says He will take care of - Romans 12:19. Men are given the headship of women when they are married to them. It has nothing to do with her behavior, rebellion, what the State says she can do, what feminists want, etc. He is the head. There is nothing wrong with that structural issue. It is written and it is so. There is also no Biblical support for women to divorce a man.

      In considering a business, if you read the contract that reigns over that business (The Bible for a Christian marriage covenant), and that contract states that you are indefinitely the CEO and the other party can not abandon the business for any reason... that is a 100% guarantee.

      Delete
    2. I was not referring to actually killing oneself. I was trying to make the point that when the stakes are high enough, the risk is still unconscionable. I was not talking about being in a dire financial position, I was talking about if it goes wrong then you would be at the homeless shelter and soup kitchen level.

      Now you are being intentionally dense. Do not play stupid. You know damn well that it is not the man's headship in marriage that is the problem. Nor is that my problem with it. It is that the State and feminism have effective control over marriages.

      A contract means nothing if no one will enforce it. Having considered the contract of marriage in this day and age, both de facto and de jure, it is not appealing, even wanting children. You can play the irrational card all you like, but ever if you were correct, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain in it.

      The Shadowed Knight

      Delete
    3. I was not talking about being in a dire financial position, I was talking about if it goes wrong then you would be at the homeless shelter and soup kitchen level.

      Like a family of three with $80 to their name for a month, having not paid rent for four months. Been there. And had God not intervened we'd have been homeless. Yet God made those dollars stretch, we never took a handout from government and we prayed a lot. The two years prior, RLB earned $8000 - for the year. That year, when it looked as though we'd be homeless, we held tight together, refused to live in fear, and prayed. Our landlord was kind to us and did not throw us out (praise God). RLB, not having a sale more worth more than a couple hundred dollars that year, signed a deal that netted him $16K. That was 16 years ago. I look at the faith those young kids had and I'm all the more convicted of what is lacking today. No. I will not concede that a movement based on fear is one I will ever support. It is an insult to the man my husband was and the faith he had back then.

      Delete
    4. You keep coming back to fear. What is it, if it is not your own fears speaking? Why do you always come back around to fear? Fear does not motivate men nearly as much as it does women. Men can be dispassionate about these things.

      You talk much of rational choices and rational behaviors, but you are more prone to rationalizations. I have seen it so many times, it is like a pattern. Do you really see men as so frightened? Is your understanding limited to such an extent?

      We do not need your support. We would prefer to have your indifference.

      The Shadowed Knight

      Delete
    5. The Christian MGTOW who desires to have children, who denies those desires due to the chance of losing those children defines himself by his fear. Is this the "we" you speak of? Are you a Christian man who desires to have children?

      It is good that you do not need my support. You're inability to stop commenting displays that you indeed want much more than my indifference. The inability for men who either are MGTOW or support MGTOW to not comment on the MGTOW threads or to not email me displays that they want much more than my indifference.

      Are you going to pretend that your continued commenting is meant to display how dispassionate you are?

      Why does it bother you, my and RLB's opinion/assessment of you?

      Delete
    6. To be completely honest, I was bored at work. That and you had the only moving comment thread in a subject that interested me. Work is not very engaging, so I found something else to occupy my mind. My continued commenting is for my own purposes, not to convince you of anything, although that would be nice. I would point out that you could have let it end at any point. We are both keeping this going. All you had to do was let it go, and it would have gone.

      Besides, had you never posted on the subject, neither of us would be having this conversation. I am not indifferent to MGTOW, and neither are you. Nor am I dispassionate about it. I could hardly convince you otherwise, for that would be a lie. I want to be left alone, but you let people poke at you and they start to think that they can walk over you, too. Bite the hand that pokes you. Nip it in the bud.

      Finally, to your question: yes I am a Christian man that desires a family.

      Delete
  18. It is that the State and feminism have effective control over marriages.

    And this is where you and I part ways. I will not concede, and you can call me any names you'd like, that what God has declared so, is only so if political times accord for it. What I have experienced is too great. It is completely aligned with biblical Truth. God's Word is Truth every.single.time. A husband IS the head of the wife. Full stop. The implications are huge and like gravity can not be denied.

    You're a fool should you believe God will not enforce His Word (contracts).

    It may be so that when I am dead and gone the MGTOW movement may live on. My children and grandchildren will know exactly where their parents/grand parents stood on the matter. God will not have changed. Nor will his Word. Never will our children and grandchildren read that we, RLB and I, gave way to fear and supported a movement that bases itself on that fear.

    Reviewing your comments I've noted you've not made one reference to God nor responded to the Bible verses I have pointed out. I will ask you this, are you a Christian? If you are not, please excuse yourself from this conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Divorce is a sin, barring adultery on the part of the wife, and even then only optional. That is the only way that it is acceptable, and it is not recommended. You recognize this, I recognize this, and it is realized by the will and command of God, in whom I do believe. That does not change the conditions on the ground. Women do not need to obey the commands of men any more than man must obey God. Is it wise to disobey and rebel? No more than it is to sin, though all still do, and some even embrace it.

      I am a fool? Let me take a quick look around and see all the marriages being enforced... only not so much. Will there be punishment as consequence for the forsworn? Absolutely, in His own time, and on His terms. He helps those who help themselves.

      You fear MGTOW. That is why you insist so loudly that is a movement based on fear. Women project their own emotions, including their own fears, and then impute the motives of others based on that projection. And the reason for that fear follows along right behind. Grandchildren. Grandchildren. That you might never see them; it terrifies you. MGTOW are the threat of an empty house once your children leave. It is the threatpoint of men to women: submission or solitude. That old, primal fear of womankind. Being alone. No man, no children, no grandchildren. That is what you fear. The fear is all yours, not mine.

      The Shadowed Knight

      Delete
    2. From the email I received: "the one thing that women seem to completely ignore when discussing MGTOWs concerns is: LOSING ONES CHILDREN."

      Written precisely as he wrote it to me.

      If this is not your motive for GYOW, that is fine. My post addresses this email. Using the statistics I have found, men who desire children but fear losing them, GTOW based on ignoring the 70% chance that they will not lose their children, and an even greater chance that they'll have a relationship with their adult children even should they live separately while those children are young.

      This is irrational. Regardless if I desire to have grandchildren.

      Do I want grandchildren? Of course, Proverbs 17:6 in addition to them being a blessing from the Lord to our children. Do I fear not having them? No.

      My children will grow up and live their lives. They will leave us and become one flesh with their spouses. What will remain is fantastic and getting better with each passing year. The evidence of the blessings of living a life obedient to God and his calling for me in marriage. I have nothing to fear, I submit to my husband.

      I have a vision of my Christmas table.
      I do not have a fear of it not coming to fruition. It is a vision that God placed upon my heart that has guided my path and brought me into obedience to God and submission to my husband. Because it has led me to Truth, I can know it has not been made from a lie, nor is it based in fear.

      2 Then the Lord answered me and said:

      “Write the vision
      And make it plain on tablets,
      That he may run who reads it.
      3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time;
      But at the end it will speak, and it will not lie.
      Though it tarries, wait for it;
      Because it will surely come,
      It will not tarry.
      - Habakkuk 2:2-3

      Delete
  19. SD,

    I was wondering what you mean by MGTOW.

    I would like to point out something out to you. You have posted that men not wanting to get married because of the "odds" of it failing is your word here "irrational". I realize you have defined a specific set of circumstances and criteria that a man has some control over, Christian , faithful etc. It seems that there is an implication that the goal of a traditional family life is not valuable enough form men to pursue given the odds. HOWEVER, the men may not be seeing it that way. The problem is that men value traditional marriage and children much MORE than you are giving them credit for. The reluctance isn't irrational its a reflection of the high importance we place on those things.

    To put it in perspective: A Powerball lottery ticket costs $2. There is almost no chance in the world that you are going to win. It's only $2. If you play your out the cost of a coke. Most people can take that loss. In fact the loss is meaningless to them. Other things in life involve risk too. That's why we have insurance. Your insurance rates (forget Obummer care for a minute) reflect the chance of suffering a loss. This is why a 60 year old man pays a lot less for his car insurance than a 16 year old. We can afford to spend $400 to $600 a year to cover the risk of losing a $30,000 car.

    A man will spend $2 on a risk that is almost certain to fail. He will spend hundreds a year on a risk that the professional actuaries rate as fairly low. According to your statistical analyses you are stating a man's risk as being about a 2 in 10 chance of failure. IF that risk is more than a man is willing to take it is not irrational, he just has a lower risk tolerance than you think he should.

    Examine this risk tolerance structure as it relates to marriage. What can be done to reduce the man's risk? The number 1 for all time thing is to marry a virgin. Not a secondary virgin, a real hymen intact and no other man having felt her up or otherwise messed around with her until you get her on the wedding night virgin. In America today what are the man's chances of finding the illusive virgin are on par with what? I suspect the odds are someplace between the car insurance and the Powerball. Lets say he finds the Christian virgin female (those two things do seem to pair together) by your own admission he is now at that wonderful 20% failure rate.

    In order for your hypothetical stats to hold true you have to create a whole set of assumptions and restrictions for the control group. The average man isn't looking at all the little hoops he has to jump thru in order to have "happily ever after" work out, and then evaluating the "risk". What he is seeing is that the real world is hostile (because of the female imperative) and that there is little that he can do to change that reality. The odds of it working out are much lower than your 20%, he knows it and while he would take the chance if he happened upon the opportunity, he has discovered that the opportunity is rather elusive. This isn't irrational, its the way life is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The average man isn't a Christian that sets standards for who he marries. The point of the exercise is to realize that the stats aren't nearly as stacked against the thoughtful, Christian, young man as the MGTOW movement wants to say it is. Regardless of risk aversion, a Christian man is commanded to live in faith, not fear. Obviously, fear of hurt feelings or loss of money doesn't negate God's command for men.

      BTW, I lost bad on the Christian, virgin girl. I know I'm not the only one that did. I'm only pointing out that it isn't a silver bullet. That's why my standards for a wife were far more complex than the virgin test. I saw far too many of those virgin girls get married and frivorce their husbands.

      Delete
    2. "The point of the exercise is to realize that the stats aren't nearly as stacked against the thoughtful, Christian, young man as the MGTOW movement wants to say it is."

      You're full of shit pal. And blind as a bat. Let me know when you're ready to take the red pill and stop living in denial. Good day.

      Delete
  20. Statistics are easy to fake, manipulate . I go with what I observe around me. What you say marriages offer to men, like sex etc are often missing. Sexless mariages are not rare, low sex marriges less rare. This doesn't include other factors

    What folks don't get on the don't marry issues is the aggregated risk. Its not only the risk of divorce, divorce theft, losing your kids, its the very likely possibility your marriage will suck. No sex/ very little sex, constant shit tests, her wanting to rack of debt, etc etc etc.

    Even when there is no divorce there is not success. I know two happily married men. Neither would marry again. All others envy my life. Poverty included

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Does the fear of going through the pain of losing one's children warrant the response of not having children at all?"

    No. It means having your ENTIRE LIFE destroyed in every way possible. I know I'll NEVER get married. Only a man who is a fool would in this Feminazi system.

    ReplyDelete
  22. gee? why would a man be unfaithful? you posit that like its 100% male fault. is there nothing women do that might cause
    men to be unfaithful?

    or areonly men capable of guilt?

    and could not mgtows be described as resisting attraction to women? i.e. qualify for the other side of the if you can not resist statement?

    and how many wives did David have?

    and what about the passage about 7 or 8 women joining up with one good man, feeding themselves in hopes of being forgiven.

    and I have read the biblical divorce passages but it was a long time ago so forgive me, but it seemed that divorce and post divorce celibacy for life only had female semantics. ie applies only to women. I will have to search and study that, but I remember it as only men able to divorece a woman, not vice versa.

    and what about the obedient wife clause? obedient in all things? if that included sex, the average husband wouldn't have enough hormones left to chase other women...

    no, what ever you do, zero blame on women, and twist the stats with male only blame variables limitations...

    seems like a mangina for Christ arguement...

    ReplyDelete