A Sex-Obsessed Shrew

I stumbled across another Christo-femDOM extraordinaire, writing under the pseudonym Charis R. Hart, via a comment left here. The semantic acrobatics (a.k.a. hamster wheeling) are something to behold. In her post, Are you “subject to your husband in EVERYTHING”?, she claims that she is “subject” to her husband in “EVERYTHING” but that she does not  “SUBMIT to him in EVERYTHING.” [All emphasis in the quotations cited is hers – there is so much emphasis added that one wonders why she can’t make a point without shouting]. Please do click on that link – the graphics alone are worth it. For more fun with semantics, check out this pretzel logic she linked to: Good question…did/does God order wives to ‘obey’ their husbands?

Of course, one can’t mention submission without providing the fodder for women to see themselves as abused. Granted, there are situations that are abusive – I don’t deny that at all – but this constant emphasis on male abuse of women makes it seem more prevalent than it is, and that women are always blameless. So, What if he is abusive?, she asks. In this she repeatedly implies that her husband is/was abusive, that he needed to repent, that he caused her to “WILT”, and the only way to change this was to lead the marriage herself.

Is this accurate though? In another very strange post, she emphasises the word “sex” over and over in huge red letters. The title of the post is: sex, sex, sex, sex, sex- Is it really ALL about SEX???? This looks like someone who is repulsed by sex, for whatever reason. Speculatively, they probably has a ‘chaste courtship’ and the sex was never that great, or it was duty sex to make children (they have eight). It might have been something like this:

In this post she examines the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:5, using a modern literal translation: Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. (RSV) Her contempt for men is loud and clear:

So don’t refuse sex to each other..
(Contemporary English Version) 1 Corinthians 7:5

One needs to go back and look at the Greek, because every English version is a translation with the translators being mostly male (with their “biases” and “SELF-interests” shall we say?) Contrary to popular belief, the passage in question is not a teaching restricted to SEX

So what she is saying that sex is something those filthy men want, and a pure and holy woman is repulsed by the base male sex drive. She equates unsatisfactory marital sex with harlotry, and to drive home the point that the husband should respect his wife first she offers evidence in the placement of the word “likewise” in 1 Corinthians 7:3: The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. (RSV) If she’s going to argue that way, how does she reconcile the fact that the wife is instructed to submit before the husband is instructed to love her in Ephesians 5?

 

A bit more digging turned up this gem: Coming out of “Complementarianism” and Becoming Equal. On the about section of that blog, she says this about her marriage:

Our marriage was not at all egalitarian and to be honest, my husband has not arrived here by choice.  He dug in his heels and fought my journey out of submissive wifery.

Now we get to the truth. She is a femDOM shrew who doesn’t enjoy sex and who has hen pecked her husband into submission under the banner of egalitarianism. I’ll say it again, the true egalitarian ideal is functionally impossible.

The constant application of negative epithets to describe her husband (she does this in a clever, underhanded way, perhaps similar to her methods at power grabbing in her marriage) betrays her attitude. If he was truly abusive or personality disordered, he wouldn’t have changed that easily if at all. She sees leadership as power, but nowhere does she mention (that I was able to find) the responsibility and burdens that go along with power, or that she has taken on some of these along with the leadership role, or even the claimed “co-leadership” role.

This is yet another example of people who try to teach others based on how they cope with their own dysfunction. Not content to be miserable alone, they need to drag others into their frame.

A Christo-feminist encounters Red Pill men

Frequently a Christo-feminist woman encounters the Red Pill truth and her behavior is quite predictable after she attempts to enlighten the menz with a piece of her mind and explain sin, equal (but greater) male immorality, and blames men for not manning up and marrying the wonderful and worthy young Christian women. the preachers wife is the latest example and her reason was wondering why there are no “good Christian men” lining up to marry her daughter.

She took issue with one of the things Joe Sheehy said:

Women are less able to control their concupiscence than men, but the chastity and fidelity of women is more important for the family.

In a thinly accusation that men are sexually more wanton than women, she responded:

With the exception of women being less able to contain their concupiscence, I agree[...]

the preachers wife continues:

Yes some women will want a Christian marriage if men can provide it. That means loving your wives as Christ loved the church. The problem is you can’t find good young men because[...]

Were men created to serve women by meeting women’s expectations or was Eve created to be a helpmeet to Adam?

After her attempt to edjumacate the men was not working, she even used the fallback position when the preachers wife said:

I think we should agree to disagree. It wouldn’t matter if all the girls in the world were perfect pure as the driven snow, if the boys are not raised right it doesn’t matter and vica versa. Its a mutual problem.

She got even more frustrated with the logical dissection and refutation of her assertions and in a fit of pouting, the preachers wife sarcastically stated:

You’re right gentlemen, my daughter seems to be the only problem here. Yes the slut was considering marriage to him and had told me so. No, her father and I did not raise her properly. Of course nothing he could have done could have been any part of the problem he was a saint. What was I thinking!!! Oh just that I had found some people who I did agree with and that maybe it was possible to start coming up with ways of changing the current tide. But then again you did start acting like lesser alpha’s, getting defensive lashing out with your party lines and innuendos (yes they are valid complaints I never questioned that). Circle those wagons boys!

Before you question my reading I’ve read this site and three others extensively for four days along with my husband who by the way has been approving everything I wrote before I sent it. I have a degree in political science with a minor in history. I am not as ignorant as you would like me to be.

slwerner gives a concise analysis of her projections and her resort to a flounce:

[@] the preachers wife – ”Your right gentlemen, my daughter seems to be the only problem here. Yes the slut was considering marriage to him and had told me so. No, her father and I did not raise her properly. Of course nothing he could have done could have been any part of the problem he was a saint. What was I thinking!!!”

Yes, what were you thinking?

Let me guess. You didn’t like the frank responses you got here, which dealt with young women in general as they are in today’s society. These were, primarily, responses not aimed directly at [you], but rather provided so that you might assess your own daughter against the descriptions of other, typical girls. Prior to you little melt-down, only Dalrock made the point that you daughter seemed to be following a feminist inspired script in supposedly looking for a guy who could “keep up with her”. Everyone else seems to have made more broad observation concerning young women collectively, and the lack of proper training most receive (including from churches).

But, of course, these weren’t the sort of responses you were looking for. You probably wanted reassurance that your daughter wasn’t “the problem” and that you, your husband, and the church he pastors were doing everything right.

So, getting only tough, frank responses, you became increasingly angry, until it finally over-whelmed you, and you launched into your little tirade (complete with the standard attempts to shame those who didn’t give you what you wanted).

Sorry it we (collectively) don’t seem upset by you’re rant. It’s actually not all that unusual. Many women have ventured into the manosphere/androsphere, only to become frustrated when others didn’t cow-tow to their “vision” of how the ensuing conversation should go. Predictably, they either try to tell everyone else what to think, or become angry that others (en mass) don’t acquiesce to their line of thinking. And that’s where the angry and shaming rant’s and announced departures come in.

the preachers wife – ”I’ll ask my husband if he wishes to formulate a response to your reply.”

Which loosely translates to ”I find myself in over my head, unable to refute the things people are telling me that I don’t like to hear; so I’m sending my husband in to take up the fight where I left-off.”

We[‘ve] seen this thing before as well. I guess we will all await your husbands thrashing of us for daring to make you unhappy?

deti adds a bit:

[@]slwerner:
Good observations. First, one of the things that is so frustrating about all this is that many women come here and then take it all personally when they start losing the argument or when their preconceived notions are blown sky high. Everything is personal. Everything is a personal attack. Everything is an indictment of their personal beliefs, mores, ways of life, tenets, and principles. It’s not. All we’re saying is simply that PW’s [the preachers wife] and FT’s beliefs aren’t supported by the facts on the ground, that they don’t know the facts on the ground, and that maybe they should look at things differently.

I really believe PW came here and was shocked to hear our viewpoints. She was genuinely surprised that a group of (mostly) Christian men could think and believe as we do. To her it is foreign, heathen, pagan, and an adoption of the “world” viewpoints. To people like PW, Christian men aren’t like that. Christian men are the pussified manginas who do what their wives say, attend the churches they say to attend, listen to men like Glenn Stanton and James Dobson, and get up in arms when wifey says “get up in arms”. Or they are rugged, “manly” men like Mark Driscoll or John Eldredge, but who never talk about or even acknowledge the dark side of female sexual attraction.

PW was shocked to hear her little cupcake wants nothing to do with the wussies her husband’s church is probably creating. She genuinely gets blinkered when trying to figure out why her cupcake dumped a nice boy she dated for a year. (PW: It was because your daughter figured out he’s a wuss.) PW just cannot figure out why the men in her daughter’s age group don’t ask out the girls. (PW: It’s because these men have shot down so many times their hearts look like Swiss cheese.)

PW and FT just don’t understand the current SMP and MMP. Perhaps this has helped her a little. I hope so. I really do.

imnobody affirms the analysis:

”Many women have ventured into the manosphere/androsphere, only to become frustrated when others didn’t cow-tow to their “vision” of how the ensuing conversation should go. Predictably, they either try to tell everyone else what to think, or become angry that others (en mass) don’t acquiesce to their line of thinking. And that’s where the angry and shaming rant’s and announced departures come in.”

It has happened so many times that it could be established as a law of physics. The steps are as follows:

1) Woman discovers a manosphere blog and reads some it.

2) Woman is astonished about what she reads. She can’t believe that somebody is writing this. Everybody knows that women are blameless and men are the one to blame! They must be some unenlightened individuals that have not heard the truth.

3) Woman wants to set the record straight. She thinks “I will tell the truth and everybody would agree” After all, she is a woman and nobody has ever dare to disagree with me so she has a distorted image of her intelligence.

4) That’s why Woman is astonished that the blog’s readers disagree and, in addition, dare to give counter- arguments that she can’t dispute.

5) Instead of admitting defeat or trying to learn, when Woman knows she is not going to get everybody agreeing with her, she leaves by using some shaming language (it is usually something along the lines of “I can’t waste my time with a bunch of bitter losers like you”).

What PW behavior proves is what I have said once and again: conservative women are not our allies. So-con is another branch of the female pedestalization movement, the right branch of feminism.

slwerner again comments:

deti – “PW and FT just don’t understand the current SMP and MMP. Perhaps this has helped her a little. I hope so. I really do.”

It’s hard to “unhear” the things that one didn’t want to hear – but become readily apparent, as they will now be noticed playing out in the world and people around them.
People who wish to unhear Red Pill realities might retreat back into their comfortable echo-chambers, and loudly denounce those evil, un-Christian men who were spouting such heresy, and be reinforced by their like-minded friends. But, it will be much harder for them to not notice that those Red Pill realities are be evidenced by people all around them.

In that regard, I think people like PW and FT are helped. They just didn’t want that “help”. They wanted pretty little lies. But, even if they dislike and even resent having been helped, the seeds are planted, and reality will have a way of nurturing the doubts that sprout from such seeds. Perhaps, in time, they will look back and realize that they can no longer deny inconvenient truths any longer. I know it took a fairly long time for me to finally get it.

Silenced or Set Free?

The misunderstanding of complementarity is rampant even among Christians. I stumbled upon a Christian egalitarian site called “Women in Ministry” written by a Canadian woman that is full of typical erroneous thought on this topic (it is the top search result for “complementarian blogs”). I told 7man that it turns out he is a “power hungry man seeking to control”, which resulted in much merriment and facepalming around here.

What follows has come out of the conversation 7man and I had about this and the words are more or less equally split as to who wrote what. The questions that arise here have mainly come from 7man’s stream of consciousness typing in chat. I came up with the original idea and the site, he came up with most of the words before it grew into this long post, and I have put our combined thoughts into a structure; neither of us is concerned with who gets primary credit. Welcome to complementarity in action!

 

The Women in Ministry (WiM) blog site is all about defiant women trying to justify their feelings and insubordination.  In the blog post, Ephesians 5 infected with the mindset of the world with a cherry-picked quote from a Christian White Knight blog:

A Pastor moved his family to a more expensive home against his wife’s will. Wade [Burleson] writes:

Before the move the pastor’s wife insisted that the family should not move. She had several very good and valid reasons. However, the pastor informed his wife, that as the man in the home–”the one with authority”–he would make the decision to move and overrule any objections he heard. He said moving was “the right thing” to do, and submission to his authority was “the right thing” for her to do. So the pastor’s family moved. I have withheld names, but I do hope the pastor reads this blog and realizes the dysfunctional nature of the argument he had with his wife. Multiply this by hundreds of times in conservative, evangelical homes and you get a picture of the problems created when Christian men have a warped view of their authority.

The WiM woman blog author cites an exaggerated situation and then refutes the exaggeration.  In the matter of the pastor deciding to buy a bigger house, who is working to pay for it? Were his reasons not valid because they were contrary to hers? Who took responsibility for making it work? Who is the judge of the issue?  Should a woman have ultimate veto power because she feels her reasons are good and valid? When does a woman ever realize that her feelings might not lead to the best choice? Who will earn the money to make the payments? Was her choice because she wanted to spend the money on other things for the family or for herself? Was she entitled to his earnings to use as she saw fit?

If it was her income, then there would be a point, but if she wants to spend his income differently (probably on things she wants) then she is the greedy one and needs to get a job to earn her own money so she can have the primary say in where it gets spent after she takes equivalent responsibility for supporting the family and her husband. Did she use influence and support her husband, or did she try to nag and take control and then of course he responded in kind?  It seems that the explanation provided is skewed to make him the bad guy and her the wise one.  Why do women always do that?  If they do that, are they really impartial deciders and endowed by God with the ability to watch out for the entire family while taking heat for a decision and often sacrificing their desires for the good of others?

It is telling that egalitarians have to rely on blatant cherry picking, strawman arguments, exaggeration and projection. For example, the argument that if a woman is ‘called’ to ministry she should be able to do it is accepted without question.  So if a man is ‘called’ to lead his family and his wife, should he be able to do that? That question is never asked. The title of this woman’s ‘ministry’ is “Silenced or Set free?” Silenced or Set Free? When was the last time a woman was silenced?

 

It is typical of post-modern thought that it tends to collapse under its own weight. Like the post-modernist who says “there is no absolute truth” is flummoxed when you ask him, “is that an absolute truth?” the egalitarian would be caught with her pants down with a few simple questions about what she fails to address. The questions they do ask are the questions I asked when I was six years old, literally. The difference is that I have moved on from such juvenile, simplistic questions. They seemed clever when I was six; now they just seem childish, as well they should.

This supposed egalitarianism is more about female domination than true equality, since that is the observable result. It is similar to the way in which those who call themselves liberals are so far left that they are the opposite of a true liberal, and those who consider themselves moderate conservatives are more classically liberal in practice. So the complementarian winds up more egalitarian in practice than many of those who call themselves egalitarians and each term becomes little more than a set of preconceived notions on which to pass judgement about others without knowing what the words even mean.

Why is a man’s rule automatically equated with being for his benefit? The idea of benevolent leadership is not broached and what is revealed, once again, is that women who want to lead like this do not understand the responsibility that comes with leadership. They see it as privilege only. They see a man as doing it for his own benefit because that is her idea of leadership – I get what I want; I get to do what I want; I get to tell people what to do so that I can get something. I’m sorry to say this, but women in these areas are really showing themselves up and it’s not pretty.

 

In complementarity, the roles are not the same, but the equality comes in the reciprocity. There is an equal exchange of love, respect and ideas. This would be impossible if we forced ourselves into an artificial egalitarian arrangement, where there tends to be a tit for tat score keeping of who did what to make sure the superficial exchange of duties is always equal. Love does not grow in this environment.

Many seek equality through equivalence of roles.  The equality comes from reciprocal feelings of love, trust and respect. There is also reciprocity of care. Men have weak spots too and a woman must know those and help to keep her man (and the relationship) safe. This commonly comes in the form of interlopers but can manifest in other ways too; it is beyond the scope of this post to delve into those various forms but perhaps we can save that idea for another day.

These are people who cannot understand paradoxes and that things that might seem counter-intuitive are in fact, the way to do things for the best result. Watching her video trailer for her DVDs I am quite sure that this is not my vision of being ‘set free’. Where is her sexuality? She seems repressed to the extreme and bound up in an ideology that has nothing to do with Christ. A secular feminist would be easier to talk to than this simpering Christo-femDOM woman. If you can stomach this video trailer for her DVDs, also note the syrupy kindergarten teacher tone she uses. I’ve never even talked to my kids like that except as a joke. (And what is with the 80s porno music?!)