Christianity and masculinity

I’ve seen so many different articles come across my plate over the past few weeks.

I’m no tennis fan, but apparently Danielle Collins, age 31, is a fairly successful woman’s tennis player (over 10 Million in career earnings) is on the prowl to be a trad wife. Some people found her dating profile and it went viral

Currently a professional tennis player, but kind of aspiring to be a rad wife. Straight up. Already had my boss babe era. Just wanting to raise my chickens. do home projects, make freshly baked sourdough, be a stay at home dog mom, and hopefully pop out some babies soon. If you’re going to lie about your height just leave me the fuck alone. This is a no short kings zone.

She then added in a different interview

‘I’ll tell you what … if anyone has the balls to slide into my DM like this just make sure to attach your most recent bank statement while you’re at it,’ she wrote.

One man even sent her his bank account, showing it had millions in it.

Collins then said on her Instagram: ‘Modern love … okay I’m getting off the internet now.’

Apparently she is still in her boss babe era, and almost certainly won’t be a good wife with that amount of entitlement. Buyers beware.

Spool of wire guy.

Had his spool of wire for 40 years and used it for a lot of different things. Wife is basically clueless as to why he’s so emotional about it and man is visibly disappointed. And women are supposedly the more empathetic sex.

Turns out that’s definitely not the case when men are more emotional, as we have covered many times on this blog.

Richard Reeves puts out advice on how to be a man women actually want (paywalled)

I saw this before Aaron Renn mentioned him a couple weeks ago, but he has stuff out about his new book and such.

Answering these questions has become Richard Reeves’s overarching task. Two years ago, the British-born scholar founded the American Institute for Boys and Men. He also wrote the book that crystallized America’s growing anxiety about men. “Of Boys and Men,” published in 2022, thrust the crisis of modern masculinity into the mainstream, forcing politicians to confront an uncomfortable reality: Men are falling behind women on everything from college enrollment to employment rates to basic life satisfaction. They’re also struggling to find love and get married, as I discussed in my last column.

But Reeves isn’t some men’s rights advocate. He’s not pining for a mythical golden age when men got what they wanted with minimal effort. Instead, he’s asking harder questions about identity, purpose and what it means to build a life worth living.

Women might not need men anymore, but they still want men. Men, he believes, are more than capable of rising to the occasion. “Find someone who will do and marry them,” Reeves tells me bluntly. When I suggest this sounds like settling, he pushes back: “It’s less about picking the perfect wife and more about being a good husband.”

You can basically tell where this is going without reading the rest. To paraphrase,

“Women’s progress is only good and there are no downsides. Men need to “man up” and adapt to this new world if they want to get married.”

But there’s obviously crickets when the modern man does this and the woman is still unhappy and divorces him.

Do not follow this nonsense social script. Follow Christ and only date Christian women who want to follow their man and submit to him.

Finally, making the rounds is Vogue’s Is Having a boyfriend embarassing now? 

You can read it for yourself, but the gist of it is that women are feeling embarrassed by posting boyfriends on social media for a variety of reasons such as they don’t want to alienate their friends or followers who don’t have any,  they’re embarrassed by the break ups in the end, discussing boyfriends are lame or boring, and other nonsensical stuff like this.

Basically, they’re so focused on social media’s perception of them that it is negatively affecting their own relationships and self perception. Anyone with a brain could see this one coming seeing as how social media is often more destructive for women than it is with men.

Be wary out there for the land mines. Only date women who will respect you as a man.

I’ve been trying to figure out a term to use for this, but it’s the common one for the headship-submission dynamic within marriage.

No one, not even the most ardent feminist, would say that a teacher has more value (or is less equal) than a student. It’s assumed that the role of teacher is there to guide the student, just as Jesus did with his disciples. However, we still understand that there is a hierarchical dynamic between them where one is in authority over the other and responsible for their needs. They have the authority to make decisions.

The same is true of many other common positions society wide like bosses and employees, professions and secretaries, and others.

Yet, interestingly there is value blindness when talking about Biblical husband and wives. Even many of the so-called believers in headship and submission like the complementarians need to always pay lip service to the fact that husbands and wives are different but equal in value even though they do not necessarily do it practically.

Feminists have done a wonderful job brainwashing both men and women into believing power = value and maleness = value. Ironically, by doing this they have implicitly relegated femininity to a second class role.

Luke 22:25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

To clarify the point, the feminists have convinced Christian men but especially Christian women that Gentile authority is the default over Godly authority even to Christians!

Their envious goal is to want to be in power or want to be like men rather than women. Hence, why women believe that they are worth less if they aren’t striving to at the very least be equal or in power in any relationship or take on the male roles and traits though excluding much of the responsibility.

Thus, the dynamic is that anytime anyone needs to address the role of husband if they have to address the so-called elephant in the room of “equality” they are already falling prey to feminist intent.

This is the same as the submission dynamic of letting him lead:

• Rebellion or contentious to a husband
• Letting him lead — this still maintains that the wife is the arbiter of a husband’s leading
• Following his lead

To wrap up, I think it’s important to keep digging to the root of the language and meaning because some of these things continue to slip through the cracks. We’ve identified much of Biblical attraction and arousal and how it conflicts with modern culture, but maybe we haven’t investigated the why as deeply and how it alters our perception even through just the simple way we address points and the language we use.

Been meaning to write about this IFStudies post for a while since I think they overlooked some analysis. All credit for the images are from IFStudies link.

Table: Occupational Prestige by Four Categories

• Low Prestige 0–35 Less prestigious jobs (e.g., janitors, food service workers, cashiers)
• Lower-Middle Prestige 36-49 Routine or entry-level occupations (e.g., truck drivers, secretaries, retail sales)
• Upper-Middle Prestige 50–64 Skilled or semi-professional roles (e.g., police officers, K–12 teachers, technicians)
• High Prestige 65–80 High-status professions (e.g., physicians, lawyers, college professors, executives)

The title is interesting because it leaves out some context that is highly important.

The general trends among men cheating is that they had sex with the other woman but still love their wife. However, the general trend among wives cheating is that they had already decided she didn’t love him and checked out the marriage already. This is clearly shown by wives asking her cheating husband “do you love her?” versus husbands asking their cheating wife “did you have sex with him?” Each sex wants to verify the reason differently because love vs sex. 

The reason why this is important is because women in the upper-middle to highly prestigious jobs might not necessarily cheat but they will just divorce you if they’re unhappy because they can generally provide for themselves better. So you don’t necessarily get the cheating while in the relationship, but they divorce and instantly have a new man they were emotionally involved with during the marriage. 

This makes men with prestigious jobs look worse than the woman, though I would suspect it would even out if they could account for women immediately ending up in a relationship post-divorce. 

You’d expect women with low and lower-middle occupational prestige to cheat more just because they want to continue to rely on their man for economic support — the woman food service workers, cashiers, secretaries, retail sales. Indeed, this is true.

Additionally, you’d expect the men with high prestige to cheat more because they have the economic capability to arrange liaisons better and the increased power and status from their job which women are attracted to. This is true as well.

It appears to be now true that women are out cheating men overall (11% vs 14%)which isn’t that surprising to most of us here, and this does not take into account the fact that more women are divorcing to potentially be with their liaisons that are not counted in actual cheating. Most people you would ask in the wild would think men are always the ones cheating more though. 

A lot of you hated the fact that I said that if you want someone who divorces the least you still want a college educated woman, and this also appears to be true if you don’t want a woman to cheat. The college educated women while they have a higher divorce percentage, this is misleading because the non-college educated women have more total amount of divorces are less overall so there is a lower total amount of divorces of college educated women. 

This look at the data is also important because it clarifies what you would want through multiple lines of evidence. What is going to be the most successful chance to eliminate cheating?

• College educated woman who wants to be a homemaker (not just is a homemaker or doesn’t work)
• Religious service attendance is an obvious qualifier as well, though not guaranteed that said woman is a Christian. If you have a true Christian it should be less. 
• Is a virgin as you know from past posts

Basically, bring back the Mrs degree and a Christian virgin woman who is actively preparing to be a homemaker. 

The ideal taking into account hypergamy would be mainly what we all have surmised from the get-go. 

• Christian Husband with a high prestige job (e.g., physicians, lawyers, college professors, executives) or at the very least upper-middle job. 
• Christian wife with a college degree job who wants to be a wife and mother and homemaker

The best you can glue a husband and wife together via attraction and then conform it to Biblical roles and responsibilities is going to have the most success. 

Commenter Info posted a link in one of Jack’s most recent posts about a video that talked about the occult origins of modern dating which was Part 1 of the series. I actually went down the whole rabbit hole through the full 4 part series.

I would estimate it’s about 95-98% accurate in terms of understanding how we got into this mess. The first part is about some origins, though I don’t think dating itself is necessarily evil. Parts 2 goes through the Boomers and GenX to the rise of feminism and eventually he goes into the development of the red pill and manosphere in Part 3 and 4 and how many parts of it have gone mainstream.

If you have time, the thing is worth a watch, and it’s something I would recommend to show men at Church who are interested in why the dating and marriage markets have collapsed. 

There are some inaccuracies in terms of dates which likely means he wasn’t intimately present with the rise of the early red pill, manosphere, and the Christian side of it. However, in terms of a deep history dive it’s very well done.

He’s said a lot of what we’ve said here in terms of the feminization of the Church and the lack of ability to criticize women and their sins, expectations, and inability of men to lead in marriage, and how most marriages whether egalitarian or complementarian have the underlying dynamic of the wife in power and the husband has only responsibility. 

Background if you don’t follow sports. Steph Curry is considered one of the best 3 point shooters of all time in the NBA. He’s won a few NBA championships and a couple MVPs and is one of the most popular basketball players on the planet. He’s already considered to be one of the greatest NBA players in history given his legacy. 

If you haven’t heard maybe a month ago his wife, Ayesha Curry, went on a podcast and did some sort of tell all type of interview where she was talking about her life. The problem was she revealed a ton of info to paraphrase:

• She wasn’t really attracted to Steph
• Didn’t really want to get married
• Didn’t really want kids

Unfortunately, it wasn’t all just that. She reveals that obviously she knows that most women are throwing themselves at her husband, but also that she’s insecure about it. Like most aging and starting to get overweight women she misses the male attention. 

Then she went on another show and started talking about it with women who are clearly non-Christian feminists. 

And unfortunately, it’s not just that, she has Jada Smith, who basically cucked Will Smith into an open relationship, egging her on about many men still desire her and that her husband knows it. Will, Jada, the slap, and Jada’s past Alpha ex have been already behaviorally analyzed by Jack and others. 

Based on her past playing into her marriage in the present, her current insecurities, and the “friends” she keeps (with friends like that who needs enemies), I suspect Steph might be in for a rough time. 

Steph Curry is an outspoken Christian, but his wife is currently showing signs of Christian-in-name-only behavior such as keeping with the wrong crowd and believing them. If I was him I’d try to get her on the straight and narrow otherwise he’s in for a heap of trouble. 

I assume he would have to know given the magnitude of the blowback of this incident which has been all over social media.

I didn’t have the time to go through the full interview, but I’m sure there’s more nuggets to be gleaned if you have time.

This video summarizes the disrespect over the years.

Worth a post since it came up fairly recently as a topic where I am.

Generally, I was against prenups for Christians given the whole trust issue, but now I think that all Christians should have them.

You basically get a prenup through the state which the terms are along the following.

• No fault divorce
• Husband gets punished financially in most cases
• Wife may get full custody or at least can be somewhat of an uphill battle. May be changing slowly to joint custody depending on where you live, but it can still be an issue.

In other words, there are only incentives for the wife to divorce a husband in most cases.

However, when investigating them further you can model prenups on Christian marriage. For instance, you can write in an infidelity clause that punishes the cheating and divorcing spouse financially. How much you can do this is debatable because judges can throw some out that are deemed unfairly harsh. Yet it is still a good idea to have morality clauses as an incentive against divorce.

I still do not subscribe to the idea of not getting a marriage certificate from the government and only have a Church ceremony. Any divorce lawyer and judge will laugh you out of court if you show up saying you aren’t married but in practice you are — living together, saying you are husband and wife to family and friends, and so on. You’ll probably even get punished harder for selectively trying to do this as well.

Thus, if you are getting married in this day and age even if you both are serious Christians I think it would be a good idea to get a prenup together to model it for Christian marriage. Otherwise, you have a default one that is pro-divorce from the government whether you like it or not.

A reader writes in with a video recommendation for the blog aptly named The Absolute Degeneracy of Modern Writing

I highly suggest watching it, but to summarize it for those time consumed she goes over several points.

• Literature porn has existed for hundreds of years so it’s nothing new
• However in the past couple of decades the rise of this type of literature especially in the New York Times best seller list has become more prominent though not necessarily more popular
• There’s less push back against this type of porn because it’s easier to demonize male/men form of porn and especially the feminists do not push back against this sort of thing either

This means that much more women and especially middle school and high school aged girls (10-19) are being exposed and getting addicted to this variation of porn. It almost inevitably will negatively affect their expectations in a boyfriend or husband

• The Female Sexual Response is particularly pertinent here, and she notes that it’s more narrative driven than the male sexual response. This is a good observation that we haven’t necessarily grasped before in its entirety although PUAs have been calling versions of this both on dates and trying to get sex getting a woman immersed into the situation.
• Basically, the NARRATIVE is that the woman wants to imagine themselves in the situation which is from the beginning-to-end attraction and seduction. In other words, they want to experience both the Kingdom and then the Rule. The attractive, rich, successful, charismatic leader guides them and their emotions in seduction to the sexual climax.
• She doesn’t talk about 50 Shades in particular but it’s that sort of genre except more masked under the guise of an actual story. She discusses some of the patterned plot points that some of the most popular women authors use.
• Though the video maker doesn’t mention it, this also explains why women are more likely to sext than men. Men tend to ask for pictures, but women like the descriptions of sexting better. It follows a story narrative that she can get immersed in.

It’s a very good video if you have some time to watch. I think at least partially contributes to the “hoe-flation” of modern womens’ expectations coupled with their sexual degeneracy.

Some of the shadier aspects that have come out of the manosphere starting post-2012 are the emergence of grifters selling their conferences or courses to help you become a high value man to attract women especially at exorbitant prices. They often promise a lot and typically under deliver.

These can either be men or women and the women promising these types of things, but from looking through their content the women tend to be the bigger grifters from what I’ve seen. They don’t have the experience of being a man, so any of their advice is generally second hand from what they’ve seen work from other sources. This is not to say that it’s not effective, but as I’ve said before about not reading any womens’ blogs anymore there are details that they don’t understand. For instance, the very few women who have tried to emulate the male experience such as Norah Vincent and her book on it “The Self Made Man” and other women who have tried to help their friends on dating apps inevitably find themselves horrified at what your average man experiences.

The latest is Sadia Khan who is a supposed psychologist and helps men with 6000+ and 9000+ GBP. That’s 8000 and 12000 USD respectively from the one on one and other courses from her site. She’s appeared on a lot of different media, TV, and others.

Whelp, turns out there’s a lot more to that story.

• from Instagram 
• from Youtube expose

From the gathering of information it appears:

• She’s not actually a psychologist and has a degree from a buy-a-degree school. She even photoshopped a legitimate psychology degree from the British psychologist institution.
• She has a husband but is a side piece to wealthy Arab man who has a fiancee/wife. There are explicit texts as well as her bragging via a recorded call with the fiancee that she could bang the Arab man on her wedding day and make him come running to her.
• Once stuff started coming out she threatened to sue and harassed many people online. Enough receipts came out that she had to take her Instagram private.
• Regularly used waist filters to make her waist appear smaller in videos

There’s more but I expect there to be a lot more grifters exposed in the future. It’s a ripe field for con men and women. Even some of the more famous women in the space like Pearl has had things come out as well.

In general, I would not trust women in the men’s space at all. There’s too high a chance they’re trying to capitalize on male loneliness or attention by trying to get money out of it or become popular themselves. They can generally say the right things because most info on male and female behavior is at least exposed now, but they don’t know a man’s experience and how to teach them how to truly be a man. Worse yet they might have terrible character as well.

That is one thing where I have to applaud RooshV. He seemingly has had a legitimate conversion to Orthodoxy and shut down his sale of PUA books. Then in the past year or two he also shut down his site and forum which contained more PUA content. He basically put his money where his mouth is which is commendable and likens to a legitimate conversion to Christianity.

Haven’t had the time to blog, but here are some topics that I’ve wanted to comment on for a few days or months back that were interesting. 

Topic 1: One study looked at the attitudes of men and women in regard to promiscuity in female, neutral and male biased populations. 3:1 for the bias which would be 75% female and 25 male and vice versa. To no one’s surprise males more than females had negative attitudes toward promiscuity, especially more in the 3:1 male bias. This made the authors conclude that the attitude is to ensure paternity certainty.

In another vein, Testosterone altered male behavior to be less pro-social and more self-reinforcing. While on the surface this appears negative because you’d think that you want men to care more about the group. this makes sense in terms of improving odds of going against herd behavior and also in building an effective dominion. I’ve seen some other studies suggest that marriage and children have a decreasing affect against testosterone meaning that one a man’s dominion has been established his behavior can be altered to be more pro-social to his family. 

Topic 2: Aaron Renn’s link list a week or two ago mentioned a San Francisco woman’s treatise into dating men’s categories and the dysfunctional categories of men that develop. It’s not very concise, but it’s what many have echoed in the manosphere for a long time though the author hates the manosphere. Her categories for men she met were

• The man who is not – lost in the world and eventually has some midlife crisis
• Man with a plan – Plan is for worldly success but doesn’t know anything about manhood which leads to varying successes and fails
• A man who provides – bases his whole person on providing for women which predictably leads to some success with relationships but often much failure
• A man who opts out – Can or usually has some success with jobs, but dating is a wreck either can’t get dates or relationships fail in early stage. Gets tired of rejection. Basically, MGTOW but they didn’t want to use that term.
• Man who becomes a beast – This is the author’s term for men who take to the manosphere and become wildly attractive to women but has an underlying attitude of nastiness (e.g. men vs women, women are the biggest child in the room, etc)
• Man who is whole – According to the author has a good grasp of manhood in terms of how a job fits together with family. However, at least in my analysis the man who is whole  has the underlying assumption that this man is a supporter of women and feminism.

The author then suggests these changes to help men.

1. Encourage positive male role models on how to become a man
2. Stigmatize sexist behavior toward men
3. Remind men of their worth
4. Encourage men to discuss issues they face and listen to them
5. Openly acknowledge male and female biological differences and embrace diversity

Like the male who is whole, however, much of these changes are references to somewhat of a female approved version of manhood.

Additionally, the commenters while mostly appreciative to the plight of men, many of them didn’t really understand why manhood and femalehood needed distinguishing and why the focus shouldn’t be on developing good people or personhood. The irony couldn’t be more palpable.

Topic 2b: One commenter on the SF woman’s topic attempted to come up with a path to manhood while being pro-feminism and probable non-religious.

1. Build character – Basically the fruit of the Spirit and virtues. His list – Integrity, Rationality, Temperancem, Compassion, Courage, Justice, Generosity, Perseverence, Humility, Equanimity
2. Carry weight – Someone must depend on you
3. Create something – writing, art, invention, discovery, etc.
4. Give back – 10% charity and 4 hours per week
5. Could add others

Again, the irony is clear that the best that non-religious men could come up with is something that the Bible says all Christians should be like. In fact, Western civilization being built on Judeo-Christian ethics makes this even more obvious.

They want the morality of Christianity without the Patriarchy, but it is the Patriarchy that made the Society stable with males and manhood and females and womanhood.

Or other they still want men to be men (provider, protector, leader) but they want to contradict it when they don’t feel like it.

Topic 3: Apparently a new analysis of the Regnerus same sex study vindicates the original showing that there are negative differences in same sex marriages that raise children as opposed to heterosexual marriages.

Topic 4 and 5:

• Women are still looking for a protective man
• More Young Women will pursue family life if Good Men step up

These topics have become par for the course with IFStudies women authors putting the blame on men for the poor dating market. Same with the Christian tradcons like Brad Wilcox who publishes similar topics like the above.

They really don’t get it. They continue to try to reframe the lack of women marrying onto the lack of men. The second article even blames men for their lack of leadership directly by saying they’re right to decline becoming mothers without it.

If men are leaders of families—which I think they have the responsibility to be—then men are going to have to lead here as well. Because women will continue to think it’s in their best interest—and, frankly, I think they are right—to decline becoming mothers with the profound vulnerability and dependency that entails—with men in whom they cannot put their trust.

Or maybe it would be a good idea for these women to stop caving to feminism and trying to be independent boss babes and actually learn how to be feminine and submissive. But no, we can’t have that.