Mrs. Lorelai?

24 Aug

Those who have read this blog for a while (or have read most or all of the posts) probably know that I was a fan of Gilmore Girls when it was on TV.  What’s weird about my enjoyment of the show is that I thought the two titular leads were pretty insufferable.  Single mom Lorelai and her daughter Rory were presented as a courageous, witty, attractive mother-daughter duo whom we were supposed to love and root for, but the more I watched, the more I thought, “Holy MOLY does Lorelai ever think the world revolves around herself.  And does she ever SHUT UP?!”  Yet I generally thought the storytelling on the show was good.  Go figure.

Recently the show popped into my head again, and I got to thinking – would any man in the real world consider Lorelai marriage material?  During the seven years that the show aired, she had sex with five different men, yet I think very few fans of the show would consider her promiscuous.  Let’s break it down:

Max – Rory’s teacher at a prestigious prep school.  Seemingly brought together by animal magnetism, Lorelai and Max were on and off until Max, in a fit of frustration, proposed marriage as a way to remain together.  This prompted Lorelai to give a speech about how proposals should be Events.

LORELAI: No, it has to be planned. It should be magical. There should be music playing and romantic lighting and a subtle buildup to the popping of the big question. There should be a thousand yellow daisies and candles and a horse and I don’t know what the horse is doing there unless you’re riding it, which seems a little over the top, but it should be more than this.

Of course, Max did just what Lorelai demanded suggested, and she accepted…

…only to cancel the engagement after calling Rory’s dad (with whom she had already had an impromptu one night stand with on the balcony of her parents’ house during one of her breakups with Max) during her bachelorette party and realizing that she didn’t really want to be married to Max.

Christopher – Lorelai’s high school boyfriend and Rory’s estranged dad who starts the series as an irresponsible screw-up and ends the series as a wealthy man (gotta love inheritances).  In addition to having sex with Christopher during a breakup with Max, Lorelai also had sex with him again on the eve of her best friend’s wedding, after finding out that Christopher and his live-in girlfriend were on the outs.  The only problem was that the next day, Christopher found out that his girlfriend was pregnant, and he decided to go back to her so he could be there for the child.  (But wait, there’s more…)

Alex – A hunky, personality-free guy Lorelai dated briefly.

Jason – A guy Lorelai knew (and used to make fun of) from childhood who went into business with her father.  Quirky and persistent, he finally got Lorelai to go out with him – although she insisted that their relationship remain secret.  Lorelai finally broke it off with Jason after she found out that he was suing her father for screwing him over in business.

Luke – The gruff diner owner with the good heart who pined for Lorelai for a decade (even while briefly married to another woman after a drunken whim on a cruise ship – !!!) before he finally listened to some self-help tapes and realized that Lorelai was the one for him.  After dating for several months (minus a month-long breakup), Lorelai spontaneously proposed to Luke (in order to “feel better” after Rory was arrested for grand theft of a yacht).  Luke accepted, but Lorelai put a halt to their wedding plans, stating that she couldn’t get married without Rory being a part of it (the two became estranged after Rory’s arrest and subsequent dropping out of Yale).  When Rory and Lorelai reconciled, Lorelai went ahead with planning the wedding, but then it was Luke’s turn to postpone, due to discovering he had a pre-teen daughter by an old girlfriend, and wanting to establish his place in his daughter’s life – without Lorelai’s involvement – before getting married.  After months of feeling marginalized and unloved, Lorelai finally gave Luke a tearful ultimatum to elope.  He refused, and Lorelai ran off, right back into the arms of…

Christopher (again).  Christopher had become a single dad after his wife had left him for a prestigious job opportunity in Paris.   He had also become very wealthy due to an inheritance from a deceased relative, and began paying for Rory’s schooling, which brought him back into Lorelai’s life.  After Luke rejected Lorelai’s ultimatum, Lorelai went to Christoper for comfort and ended up having sex with him.  Then the new writers for the show took over and made Lorelai and Christopher begin dating again and seem like a functional couple until they eloped in Paris, after which Lorelai started exhibiting buyer’s remorse but being completely surprised that her husband would notice and feel hurt about it.  After Lorelai wrote a character reference letter for Luke’s custody battle for his daughter, Christopher found it and interpreted it as his wife still having feelings for her ex-fiance.  Christoper confronted Lorelai about the letter and stormed off, refusing to answer any of her phone calls for 24 hours.  Unfortunately for Christopher, Lorelai’s father had a heart attack during this time, and when Lorelai couldn’t reach Christopher, she decided once and for all that he could never be depended on and that they had made a mistake in getting married.  After they separated (with Christopher apologizing to Lorelai for “pressuring” her into marrying him), Lorelai began incorporating Luke into her life again, and realized that he really was the one after she found out that he worked all night to give Rory a going-away party (in the series finale, she leaves to work on the Obama campaign).  Of course, Luke was ready to take Lorelai back with open arms, stating that he was willing to give her “all the time she needs.”

My feeling after Lorelai had sex with Christopher after giving Luke the ultimatum was that Luke would have to be CRAZY to take Lorelai back, especially after how things ended between them.  How could any man with even a smidgen of self-respect take back a woman who ended their relationship with a crazed, overemotional ultimatum and having sex with her ex who happened to be the father of her child and with whom she had had a number of one-offs?   And then – the storytelling debacle of the final season – turn around and date and marry the ex, then split after a couple of months because, oops, she wasn’t thinking straight and she really still did have feelings for her ex-fiance?  At the time, before I had even heard of Game, I thought the reasoning behind this plotline was completely bogus if Luke and Lorelai were truly supposed to be together at the show’s conclusion.  I remember reading articles where the showrunner said that Lorelai needed to explore what might have been with Christopher and realize that hopes/wishes were not the same as actually making a life with someone.  Okay, fine – but did she really need to marry and divorce him over the span of a few months to figure this out?  According to the show, the characters had known each other for over 30 years!  Moreover, if Lorelai still had this burning need to figure out if she and Christopher could make a life together, then what was she doing ever getting engaged to and planning to marry Luke?!?!  It just made Luke look like a placeholder and an enormous CHUMP for taking her back at the end, acting as though Lorelai’s actions were just a tiny misunderstanding to be waved away now that time had healed all wounds.

Truthfully, the show was in a pickle after the ultimatum/sex.  The original showrunner and primary writer left the show after that, leaving a new crew of writers to resolve the storyline in what turned out to be the final season.  The show’s fans had oneitis for Luke and Lorelai as a couple, so the show had to end with the two together, yet the original showrunner had, in my opinion, rendered that logistically impossible.  So, while the writers didn’t exactly make lemonade out of the lemons they were left, they did make…something.

Anyhow, I’ve gone completely off track with my original point, which was whether any men in real life would consider Lorelai wife material.  Clearly I’m overinvested if I’m still having fits over the storyline even though the show has been out of production for several years, but the show’s transgressions were so egregious that they will forever remain irreconcilable.  I can suspend disbelief for quite a bit of things in a fictional story, but defying basic human nature isn’t one of those things.

 

Advertisements

105 Responses to “Mrs. Lorelai?”

  1. modernguy August 24, 2011 at 10:06 am #

    Now I know the meaning of the phrase “chick crack”.

  2. Toz August 24, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    Never watched the show. But clearly, the drama of back and forth is exactly what women want. As for:

    “whether any men in real life would consider Lorelai wife material”

    Clearly yes (beta chumps). Too bad she won’t consider those guys husband material until it’s too late.

  3. y81 August 24, 2011 at 10:51 am #

    To begin, yes, you are definitely oveinvested. One can’t marry a TV character, because they are fictional. Most men would not consider the question meaningful.

    If the question is, are there any guys who would marry a woman who had sex with five guys in the past seven years, then, yes, of course there are. Most of the women in the wedding pages of The New York Times have had sex with five boyfriends in the seven years preceding their marriage. If the question is, would any men get back together with a woman who had dumped them, then again the answer is yes, although there are many who would not. Once you get more specific, i.e., would many men marry someone with the bizarre life experiences of a TV character, you’ve left the realm of meaningful questions.

  4. Bellita August 24, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    I remember enjoying most of the episodes I managed to catch, but I stopped watching long before the season when Rory becomes, to Lorelei’s anguish, “the other woman.” (A friend told me about it and I was as turned off as he was.) Just when Rory seemed to be the more grown up of the two–and actual “wife material” where her mother had failed! Sigh!

  5. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    They screwed up a lot, but no, not only a chump would marry Lorelei. At least not if he’d known her as long as Luke; the thing about those two was that they were about equally messed up over the years in regards to their feelings for each other (though Lorelei messed up more often). But then again, I could be wrong; I mean it’s one thing to want to marry Lorelei at the stage she and Luke were at when they got engaged, but AFTER that?? You’re right, it was unrealistic; what idiot decided to make them screw up so DRASTICALLY? I’ll give Lorelei credit for one thing, she TRIED to make it work with Christopher. They seriously messed up the ending of this show. The one thing I disagree with is that Lorelei “demanded” a better proposal from Max. She was right, it shouldn’t have been so spontaneous and done out of jealousy. That whole relationship was easily seen as weakening and crumbling drastically; it’s the one relationship I have total sympathy for Lorelei over (except for her sucky ducking the altar).

  6. Svar August 24, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

    Never watched the show. I watched it briefly, but it bored the hell out of me. Women. I’m sticking to Blue Mountain State.

    The fine and intelligent men over at Chronicles have some good, almost Roissyian/Manosphere/Alt-right analysis of the Modern Woman(h/t MOSES Nicholas):

    “Here’s a couple of subtypes of the archetypical vicious modern female, otherwise known as a _____:

    1. The Material Girl. This female never becomes a woman at all. Her father spoiled her and was emotionally abusive (absent too often); her notion of a man is therefore as a means to material ends. Obsessed only with style and appearance, she’ll do anything to look good and she will pick an unfortunate male victim who will indulge her usually in exchange for her sexual favors. She wants a good-looking man, a good-looking car, a good-looking house, and a good-looking photo album. That is why she is obsessed with finding a man to take her to France and Italy on holiday, not because she admires French and Italian culture, but because she wants the souvenir photos in front of the Eiffel Tower and the Colosseum: in American prestige folklore, after all, it “looks good” to have traveled to France and to Italy.

    2. The Psychopathic Prostitute. This type is a predator, a savage. This is the sort of woman who’s a ruthless businesswoman. This woman is determined to have her way and will let no one stop her. This is the sort of woman who fires her brother because he bills her for her dressing room. She will parade her body and everything else in public if it will help her achieve her goals.

    3. The Fly-By-Nighter. This type has certain notions of romance and beauty that go beyond those of the Material Girl, but rather than seek out the larger significance she stays stuck on the superficial romantic trappings. If she enters into a marriage, her motivation is probably not simply to “look good” to others, but once the internal luster has worn off she will start looking elsewhere for romantic satisfaction. She will pursue this romantic satisfaction even at the expense of her children, if she has any. She will not be above abandoning her husband and even kids for good for another “hot new model.”

    Actually, poor fathers are a common thread in most of the specimens of each of these types, but that’s another story.”

    Now which of these three are Fraulein Lorelai?

    MOSES Nicholas goes on to add:

    “Forgot to add. These three subtypes can all be identified as well by the respective types of men they seek:

    The Material Girl seeks a trophy husband, a highly attractive rich man and rarely anything more. But if she is clever, she will seek out a rich man who is just effeminate enough not to care if he has no heirs (who would share his fortune with her when they die). She often ends up with a man just as materialistic and good-looking as herself, and so it’s anyone’s guess as to which one will initiate the divorce first.

    The Psychotic Prostitute cares little about marriage unless it will advance her career or other interests. Men for her are little more than props for her perverse pleasures, be they monetary, sexual or otherwise. If she be physically attractive, her options are of course much wider–and her list of victims much longer. The jerk as Dr. Fleming describes is a good match for her, since he seeks out “instant gratification” and will turn off what remains of his brain to walk into her sadomasochistic trap.

    The Fly-By-Nighter may actually end up with a decent, respect-worthy man. This is because she seeks qualities that good people tend to admire and try to cultivate, even though she does not understand the deeper goodness of character and intellect that animates those qualities. The decent man may easily fall victim if he has grown up in a wholesome, tight-knit community of family and friends where he was not the one who had to watch out for the kind of company he and his siblings were keeping; as such, he may neglect to fully observe and apprehend the superficiality of his charmed and sentimental woman until it is too late.”

    I think Lorelai is The Fly-By-Nighter. Woe be the man who marries her.

    This is the article that prompted the comment: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/08/22/jerks-cases-of-arrested-development/

    Dr. Fleming is, unfortunately, one of those standard white-knighting conservatives(even though he is a paleocon) but his commenters, fortunately, are not.

  7. Svar August 24, 2011 at 2:58 pm #

    Jen, only a chump would marry a Fly-By-Nighter like Mrs. Lorelai.

  8. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 3:05 pm #

    Depends in what stage of her life you caught her in, Svar. A change of attitude can mean everything.

  9. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    I don’t get why they made Roary such a dumbie in the last few seasons, either. Then couldn’t bring Dean back just BRIEFLY? Except for Dean, the guys Roary either fell for or attracted were SUCH jerks: the pretty-boy obnoxious Tristan, the flat-butted wanna-be-badboy Jess, and the body-hairless playing prig Logan. Blecch!

    Roary was usually ok though. My mom pointed out the important difference between the ball-busting bossy Paris and the sweet but strong Lorelei: one attracted men, the other didn’t.

  10. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    The only guy Paris ever hooked was almost certainly certifiably gay; maybe that’s why he was attracted to the General-type Paris, she was the “man” he wanted.

    Ok that’s mean, but it seems partly true..

  11. Svar August 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    “Depends in what stage of her life you caught her in, Svar. A change of attitude can mean everything.”

    Yeah, but Mrs. Lorelai is OLD and no longer younger, hotter, or tighter(definitely not tighter). She’s had years to get out of her Fly-By-Nighter mentality, but she didn’t. Her best chance is to draw some chump into her little “love” trap. Yeah, yeah, saved by the Grace of God, yes, but how often does that happen? Terri has an article about herself: http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/rahab-and-conventional-wisdom/

    Yes, the ladies over at TC were a little shocked by my somewhat utilitarian view, but how often do cases like that of Rahab occur?

  12. Svar August 24, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    “Except for Dean, the guys Roary either fell for or attracted were SUCH jerks”

    Roary’s a girl, after all, isn’t she?

  13. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    Hot and tight are not all that matters, svar. As for the conventional wisdom, you and the manosphere are often too pessimistic for me, particularly since Lorelei was gorgeous when the show ended; better, I think, then the cutesy face-roundness and childish look she had in the beginning. A little more reality would have been nice, though. Terri’s article was awesome btw.

  14. Svar August 24, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    “Terri has an article about herself:”

    Not about herself, but about IT herself. That was a typo and I want to clarify that. The sentence reads differently without “it”.

  15. Svar August 24, 2011 at 4:39 pm #

    “Hot and tight are not all that matters, svar. As for the conventional wisdom, you and the manosphere are often too pessimistic for me”

    You’re right. It’s all that matters :P

    Jokes asides, yes, Jen. I’m actually more of an optimist than the men of Manosphere. If I wasn’t an optimist of some sort, I wouldn’t be hanging around Christian sites like these would, I? And, for that matter, I wouldn’t be a believer if I was a pessimist. Yes, I am a conservative. Yes, I have realistic views when it comes to human nature, but still.

    The show has no grasp of reality, Jen. All it does is encourage women to become Fly-By-Nighters. With some grasp of morality, but with no moral center.

  16. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    I just see the manosphere stuff even in some of your cracks, svar.

  17. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    But, no biggie. I guess I’m getting a little touchy from all the male hamsters accusing me of feminism elsewhere. I do like for us to remember to have hope in Christ, though.

  18. Svar August 24, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    “I do like for us to remember to have hope in Christ, though.”

    Read the comment thread to Terri’s article. I promise you’ll find it insightful. I know you don’t like to go to Trad Christianity, but still.

    “I just see the manosphere stuff even in some of your cracks, svar.”

    Once it gets in, it never really leaves. Once you take the red pill you can never go back. However, that doesn’t mean that you have to embrace nihilism or genetic predestination. I didn’t know that until I came upon Christian sites. The Manosphere advocates a sort of conservatism, albeit that of a pagan-influenced nihilistic kind.

    “But, no biggie. I guess I’m getting a little touchy from all the male hamsters accusing me of feminism elsewhere. ”

    Hahaha. I understand.

    Btw, men don’t have hamsters. Hamsters are the province of Woman.

  19. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    Thanks for understanding :) Taking the red pill doesn’t mean you have to bow to worldly expectations, but I guess you haven’t completely. Yeah, men do have hamsters too. Or rationalization weasels, or whatever Paige called it.

  20. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    Were most of the comments at Terri’s saying that people can’t change?

  21. Svar August 24, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    “Were most of the comments at Terri’s saying that people can’t change?”

    No. Just me talking about how I used to be a skeptic of cases like Rahab’s and how I still am somewhat. Also, me talking about getting rid of a nihilistic mind-set. Terri did get on my case(kind of) for having such a view.

    Most of the comments weren’t like that. After all, I do acknowledge that Some People Change, but I’m wary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iSf8wxEttk&ob=av2e

  22. Svar August 24, 2011 at 6:00 pm #

    “Yeah, men do have hamsters too. Or rationalization weasels, or whatever Paige called it.”

    Not really. Men can acknowledge morality and the truths inherent within it but just not care. I spend my time at Christian sites just so I can force myself to care.

  23. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 6:04 pm #

    Thank goodness they have positive views over there; thanks for the reassurance. I do believe men and women have tried to rationalize their choices.

  24. Svar August 24, 2011 at 7:06 pm #

    “Thank goodness they have positive views over there”

    They are Christian now, aren’t they?

    Oh, btw, I’m now a contributor for Traditional Christianity. My gravatar shows a Templar fighting a Saracen and says AwakeIron(A Catholic war-cry in Catalonia). I have an article drafted.

    “thanks for the reassurance.”

    Of course.

    “I do believe men and women have tried to rationalize their choices.”

    I actually agree.

  25. The Man Who Was . . . August 24, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    Men have hamsters too. The research is pretty clear that all people do. However, women are tend to make judgments based on feeling more than men. Therefore, they tend to use the hamster more.

  26. Svar August 24, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    Good point, The Man Who Was. I guess men do have hamster but they have a greater ability to control them unlike women.

  27. Jennifer August 24, 2011 at 8:50 pm #

    Congrats svar. Do good in your writing :)

  28. Mark Slater August 25, 2011 at 1:10 am #

    Aunt Haley, you have certainly studied your favorite program thoroughly to have posted such a detailed synopsis. I wonder if my favorite show would have provided similar grist: “Would Luann Platter make suitable marriage material?” or, “John Redcorn: Irascible man-whore or typical Alpha male?”

    Svar: Read the thrust-and-parry between Thomas Fleming and Moses at the Chronicles site. I believe they both make fine points. I think we can conclude that Dr, Fleming, for all his outstanding and up-to-date political acumen, has been out of the dating market for far too long to truly appreciate the differences between singleness in 1975 and today.

    Jennifer: You never mentioned how your meeting with your admirer went.

  29. terri August 25, 2011 at 4:11 am #

    This isn’t complicated Haley. Lorelai is a very attractive woman. As such she would have had no problem finding a guy willing to tolerate her flakiness in real life. Just like in the show.

    You assessment of the show mirrors mine for the couple of seasons that I watched it. Good, writing; intolerable levels of self-absorption. Which is why I couldn’t stay with it.

  30. Svar August 25, 2011 at 4:27 am #

    @ Mark Slater

    Thanks for the tip-off. I think I know you from somewhere…. Where is it that I know you?

    MOSES Nicholas and Prateek Sanjay are probably the two most insightful commenters over at Chronicles.

  31. Svar August 25, 2011 at 4:29 am #

    Mark Slater, your assessment of Dr. Fleming is correct. Will S has said the same. The man is an old fart(but a smart one when it comes to matters besides sex relations) and doesn’t realize the realities of the modern day SMP/Meat Market Economy.

  32. Svar August 25, 2011 at 5:47 am #

    “Jennifer: You never mentioned how your meeting with your admirer went.”

    True, Jen. From what I read over at David Collard’s site, you basically LBJFed him.

  33. Svar August 25, 2011 at 7:04 am #

    Mark Slater, I’ve thought about this statement some more: “I think we can conclude that Dr, Fleming, for all his outstanding and up-to-date political acumen, has been out of the dating market for far too long to truly appreciate the differences between singleness in 1975 and today.”

    I thought it over and I’ve realized why most people can’t see what we do. Both men and women are contributing to the modern day sex utopia/dystopia, but men are adding to the rot in more obvious ways. Women, on the other hand, are adding to the rot in a more significant and damaging way than men, but they are doing in a more subtle and obscured manner. The men who are adding to the rot are doing in extremely obvious and noticeable ways, like say, Tucker Max. However, men like Tucker Max and Roissy are just a reaction to the ways of the Modern Woman. This is a reality that most people can’t(in the case of white-knighting conservatives) or aren’t willing(in the case of feminists) to acknowledge.

  34. Hana August 25, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    You were a fan of Gilmore Girls? How funny, I also thought the end of the show was bad storytelling and made no sense!

    We should have been talking to each other!

    Svar: based on your descriptions of the three women, I’d say that many/most of the women in romantic fiction/TV shows are “the Fly-By-Nighter.” The other two types of women are usually their adversaries who may try to steal away the Fly-By-Nighter’s man. If the man is the hero/soulmate for Fly-By-Nighter, the other types of women don’t succeed – but if they do succeed, it’s to highlight that the Fly-By-Nighter’s man wasn’t Mr. Right after all.

    Yes, men do have hamsters…I learned this through reading the comments on this blog. Female hamsters are usually more active than male hamsters, I’ll admit; but both of them can get pretty worked up when occasion requires.

  35. Aunt Haley August 25, 2011 at 9:47 am #

    Hana–
    U R funnee. ;)

    terri–
    Well, obviously. (I always thought the main reason Luke carried a torch for Lorelai was because she was the only attractive adult female in their entire town. All of the other women were fat, old, homely, or some combination thereof. No wonder Lorelai loved living there!) Maybe I should have specified happy marriage material. It was very hard for me to understand why any man would think a future with Lorelai would be worth it. Even Lorelai’s “meant to be” relationship with Luke revolved primarily around all the things he was willing to do for her.

  36. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 10:17 am #

    I’d been wondering when to mention it, Mark. Thanks for the reminder :) The meeting went nicely; neither one of us expressed a romantic interest, and he’d said he just wanted a friend before the meeting, so it turned out well.

  37. Mark Slater August 25, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    “…men are adding to the rot in more obvious ways. Women, on the other hand, are adding to the rot in a more significant and damaging way than men, but they are doing in a more subtle and obscured manner.”

    Svar, your analysis is quite correct. Being, as we are, fallen creatures, the desire to follow the Tucker/Roissy program [men] or the hypergamous thing [women] is always there in every era. The difference is that, back in Dr. Fleming’s day, there was still a remnant of social decorum and Western Christendom to keep things from falling away as badly as what we are witnessing.

    The temptation for men like Dr. Fleming is to conclude, “My, there are certainly a lot of jerks out there taking advantage of these poor girls.”

    My own dear Dad is absolutely baffled at what he sees. Certainly there were “girls who do” in his day, and all the girls pictured themselves with their “dreamboat”; but today… “God help us” he says while shaking his head.

    “I think I know you from somewhere…. Where is it that I know you?”
    I don’t know. Where else would I would have familiarized myself with your writing? Have you been on other blogs?

    Jennifer: Well, that’s the way it goes. Funny he would have taken all the trouble to arrange a meeting if he wasn’t romantically interested.

  38. Svar August 25, 2011 at 11:36 am #

    “I don’t know. Where else would I would have familiarized myself with your writing? Have you been on other blogs?”

    I comment throughout the Manosphere/Alt-Right and some strictly Christian sites, but I mainly comment at Traditional Christianity.

    “My own dear Dad is absolutely baffled at what he sees. Certainly there were “girls who do” in his day, and all the girls pictured themselves with their “dreamboat”; but today… “God help us” he says while shaking his head.”

    Yes. I know exactly what you mean. My dad(even though he isn’t a conservative like Dr. Fleming or me) is the same way, he puts the blame on men. Gorbachev, a commenter throughout the Manosphere, has noted the same thing. However, Gorb is much older than me and I suspect you may be as well(I’m 18). This all ties into the Apex Fallacy as well as my comment.

    “The temptation for men like Dr. Fleming is to conclude, “My, there are certainly a lot of jerks out there taking advantage of these poor girls.””

    Yes. This is the standard sentiment throughout the Mainstream even though Chronicles not a mainstream mag and more realistic in it’s view when it comes to society and what not but still. There is another follow up article on the same topic by him: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/08/25/jerks-the-natural-man/

    He makes better points in this article, but his focus is still solely on men.

    “Svar, your analysis is quite correct. Being, as we are, fallen creatures, the desire to follow the Tucker/Roissy program [men] or the hypergamous thing [women] is always there in every era. The difference is that, back in Dr. Fleming’s day, there was still a remnant of social decorum and Western Christendom to keep things from falling away as badly as what we are witnessing.”

    Exactly, most people do have a grasp of morality but no moral center. The smart men in this era either develop a moral center like us or completely reject morality and embrace utilitarianism like Tucker Max or Roissy.

  39. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    Well, romance was always a possibility, Mark; we discussed many things. But he also said he mainly wanted someone to talk to, whether that was a friend or a girlfriend; we discussed many things over the phone before meeting and he said he enjoyed talking to me. A similar thing happened to another male friend of mine; we were both attracted to each other at some point, then things fell through but we found that we still enjoyed each other’s verbal company.

  40. Svar August 25, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    Yes, Hana, I have noticed that most female TV and movie characters are what MOSES Nicholas would call “Fly By Nighters”.

  41. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    “…My dad(even though he isn’t a conservative like Dr. Fleming or me) is the same way, he puts the blame on men.” @Svar

    This following article from Hestia – a Christian lady and blogger who writes prolifically on the subject of “conservative feminism” (or “conservative ‘white-knight-ism”, if you will) – deals with this very issue you mentioned here Svar:

    The evils of misandry and feminism are oftentimes believed to come packaged in one particular way, the leftist branch feminism that immediately pops into mind when the topic is mentioned. While this may indeed be the most visible type of anti-male streak running through our culture today, this is not the only form, nor the type of misandry that is most harmful. There is a strain of feminism, one I’ve dubbed “conservative feminism” that is typically comes packaged in sparkles, ribbons, and bows. At first glance, this form may seem innocent, but upon pondering certain ideas and stereotypes floating around out there, one will quickly realize that something sinister is flying around the conservative religious world that proclaims their hatred for feminism.

    Any belief system or idea that attempts to elevate women above men or proclaim femininity better than masculinity is feminism. In both leftist and conservative feminism this is done, often using the same wrongful ideas about men, just spinning them a bit differently for their intended audiences.

    […]

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/05/12/conservative-misandry/

  42. Svar August 25, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    Ah, yes, Langobard, Hestia was a very good blogger. But she disappeared a while back and so did her blog The Coming Night. She was a very intelligent young woman. I wonder what happened to her. She probably just got tired of it all.

  43. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    Svar, well she was blogging over at The Spearhead right up until the beginning of this year.

    Here is her archive that all on this site should bookmark and make a point to read in it’s entirety:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/author/Hestia/

    *Personally, a woman with her energy and spiritual beauty is a hard one to keep down for long, and I suspect that she will be back soon enough. For now, her first loyalty is to her husband, and their children they share together.

  44. y81 August 25, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

    “I wonder what happened to her. She probably just got tired of it all.”

    Maybe she found a man. When you find a new romance, you don’t want to hang out online, and if you have small children, you won’t have time.

    I would be sorry if our hostess disappeared, but happy if it happened for the suggested reason.

  45. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 2:33 pm #

    I wonder why on earth she’d blog on a misogynist place like “The Spearhead”. You can go too far either way.

  46. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    I wonder why on earth she’d blog on a misogynist place like “The Spearhead”.

    Yeah Jen, I overall agree with you that a lot of writers at at site are genuinely misogynistic, or just downright weird with their very unbalanced antipathy towards women. Unfortunately, they, along with elements of the MRA, are the flip side of the same coin of feminism – an ideology they purport to hate.

    However, even though she posted there, Hestia was still a very balanced blogger and author, and was very fair in addressing whatever was the topic at hand.

  47. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    However, even though she posted there, Hestia was still a very balanced blogger and author, and was very fair in addressing whatever was the topic at hand.

    Plus, it is the only place online that I found with an archive of her articles since she took down her site (temporarily we all hope).

  48. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    Maybe she found a man. When you find a new romance, you don’t want to hang out online, and if you have small children, you won’t have time.

    She has been happily married, and I believe she had a large family for as long as she has been blogging.

  49. Svar August 25, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    @ Y81

    Yeah, Hestia was married. If I recall correctly she is somewhere around 22 or 23. I don’t think she has a large family Langobard. She’s too young for that to logistically happen but she did mention having one daughter.

  50. Svar August 25, 2011 at 3:03 pm #

    The only person I know who would be keeping in contact with her is Alte but I remember asking her about Hestia and she said that she hadn’t heard word from her in a long time. She probably is just busy and tired of trolls(she used to get hit hard). I personally am tired of dealing with trolls. It wears you down after a while. I’m tired of dealing with feminists, masculinists, anti-racists, racists, and the like.

  51. Svar August 25, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    “I wonder why on earth she’d blog on a misogynist place like “The Spearhead”. You can go too far either way.”

    I personally left The Spearhead because I got bored with it. I found Roissy’s site and In Mala Fide to be more interesting and entertaining.

    Regardless, Jen, The Spearhead makes good points. It was the first site within the Manosphere that I stumbled upon.

  52. Svar August 25, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Sites that allow anonymity tend to attract more trolls and dickwads. Chronicles requires people to use their real names and they have like ten or twenty regular commenters but they are all smart and it’s still a conservative right-wing mag. Sites like Taki’s(which is far more liberal and libertarian than Chronicles. It’s an okay site not a good one) OTOH allows anonymity but the commenters are obnoxious. Regardless, I like internet anonymity and think it’s good but sometimes the bad overwhelms the good.

  53. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    “Unfortunately, they, along with elements of the MRA, are the flip side of the same coin of feminism – an ideology they purport to hate”

    Indeed. I agree Hestia’s far wiser though, and how young!

    I actually find Roissy worse than the Spearhead, Svar. At least they’re honest about their contempt for women.

  54. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Hestia does not share the view that women shouldn’t vote or work, does she?

  55. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 4:08 pm #

    I just looked over her articles; very cool! One of my favorite points, about male chores: “Work need not take place in the four walls of the home to be essential. Mowing lawns, yard work, taking out the trash, handling car repairs, and keeping tabs on the finances are just as important as marketing, cleaning, and laundry.”

  56. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    Hestia does not share the view that women shouldn’t vote or work, does she?

    I don’t think so Jen – though I do not remember if she said so definitively either way.

    Perhaps if she did think so (the work part), judging from Hestia I would imagine that she probably would think she would have felt that way thinking that it was best for the raising of children if moms stayed home to raise them. Again, just guessing.

  57. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

    I just looked over her articles; very cool! One of my favorite points, about male chores: “Work need not take place in the four walls of the home to be essential. Mowing lawns, yard work, taking out the trash, handling car repairs, and keeping tabs on the finances are just as important as marketing, cleaning, and laundry.”

    Yeah, she’s really good.

    Hestia was never shy as a lady about her tales of ‘pitching in’ and fully participating in the raising and nurturing of a family – or of the appreciation, rather than the expectation – that she showed her husband for doing the same.

  58. Svar August 25, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    “Indeed. I agree Hestia’s far wiser though, and how young! ”

    Yeah, she was very young when she started to write-about 20 or 21 years old. Maybe even 19.

    “Hestia does not share the view that women shouldn’t vote or work, does she?”

    What if she does? I’m sure she’s okay with women working or voting but regardless, she isn’t what Aaron Traas or Alte would call a “tradhole”. She isn’t full of vitriol or venom and she’s a decent girl with good insights.

    “I actually find Roissy worse than the Spearhead, Svar. At least they’re honest about their contempt for women.”

    But atleast Roissy is funny, Jen. He’s hilarious.

  59. Svar August 25, 2011 at 4:39 pm #

    Yeah, I kind of forgot about Hestia’s archive at The Spearhead since I haven’t visited there for over a year. Thanks, Langobard.

    Jen, you know my views on women working. They are actually pretty moderate. I’ll bet they fall in line with that of Hestia’s. SAHMs are better for children than full-time working mothers.

    In fact if you think about it, the pseudoname “Hestia” pretty much explains her views of women in the working place and in the home.

  60. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    No, I don’t know who “Hestia” is. And women, not MOTHERS, can work full-time.

  61. Svar August 25, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    “No, I don’t know who “Hestia” is.”

    Jen, Jen, Jen. You need to go refresh your Greek mythology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hestia

    “And women, not MOTHERS, can work full-time.”

    Jen, I have basically stated this as well. It’s okay for single women and married but childless women to work full-time outside of the house. I’d want my wife to do so. Also, it’s okay for mothers to work part-time outside of the home(as long as it doesn’t interfere with what they are needed for the most).

  62. Svar August 25, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

    Langobard, Silas Reinagel and Anakin Niceguy both left a while back. Anakin Niceguy atleast explained his disappearance but Silas didn’t. When the Christians started to leave the Manosphere, it started to take on a different direction and attitude. It became more nihilistic and utilitarian in nature.

  63. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    Oh yeah, I remember your views Svar. Kewl.

    “When the Christians started to leave the Manosphere, it started to take on a different direction and attitude. It became more nihilistic and utilitarian in nature”

    That explains a lot.

  64. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    “When the Christians started to leave the Manosphere, it started to take on a different direction and attitude. It became more nihilistic and utilitarian in nature.”

    That explains a lot. @Svar $ Jen

    Yes, it does explain an awful lot, doesn’t it?!?

    I am rather disappointed the direction the ‘Maosphere’ has taken overall…

    Instead of fighting against genuine injustices against men – both in the ‘dating’ scene and in American society in general (particularly in the legal sphere), they have increasingly focused on becoming the male equivalents of ‘male feminists’ – or ‘masculinists’ as you call ’em Svar.

    And, just like feminists are hardly feminine, fewer and fewer of their degenerate male counterparts in the ‘manospere’ can hardly be described as ‘masculine’.

  65. Svar August 25, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    “Oh yeah, I remember your views Svar. Kewl.”

    Kewl?

  66. Svar August 25, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    “Instead of fighting against genuine injustices against men – both in the ‘dating’ scene and in American society in general (particularly in the legal sphere), they have increasingly focused on becoming the male equivalents of ‘male feminists’ – or ‘masculinists’ as you call ‘em Svar.”

    Exactly. I have noticed this direction and I’ve started to stay away from most of the non-Christian Mansophere. There are still some Christians at the outskirts of the Manosphere.

  67. Svar August 25, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    “And, just like feminists are hardly feminine, fewer and fewer of their degenerate male counterparts in the ‘manospere’ can hardly be described as ‘masculine’.”

    This is definitely true.

  68. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm #

    Exactly. I have noticed this direction and I’ve started to stay away from most of the non-Christian Mansophere.

    Glad to hear that buddy.

    I mean this when I say this – both you and Jennifer are exceptionally insightful people of high character, wise beyond your years, who will have a lot to contribute to the future of our Christian, Western society.

    Yes, please be (at the very least) circumspect when reading many ‘manosphere’ sites, especially that of Roissy/’Heartiste’ (and this gentle reminder goes to everyone here).

  69. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    “fewer and fewer of their degenerate male counterparts in the ‘manospere’ can hardly be described as ‘masculine’”

    Ooh, nailed it.

    Thanks so much for your kind words, Langobard!! :) Thank God people of your sight are around.

    Did you fellows know that Gloria Steinem recently called Palin and Bachman “women only a man could love?” ROFL As Phyllis Schaffly put it, “Yes, men DO love the non-feminists.” And Steinem thought that was an insult??

  70. Svar August 25, 2011 at 6:35 pm #

    “Did you fellows know that Gloria Steinem recently called Palin and Bachman “women only a man could love?” ROFL As Phyllis Schaffly put it, “Yes, men DO love the non-feminists.” And Steinem thought that was an insult??”

    No, was it on Fox News or something? I used to watch Fox News but I don’t anymore. I’ll stick to my Chronicles and my Amerika as well as my Manosphere.

  71. Svar August 25, 2011 at 6:36 pm #

    “I’ll stick to my Chronicles and my Amerika as well as my Manosphere.”

    Oh, and my Bonald. That man is very intelligent.

  72. Svar August 25, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    “Glad to hear that buddy.”

    I’ll admit, I fell into a period of nihilism, utilitarianism, and hedonism back when I’d read Roissy and IMF every single day. I still struggle with residual aspects of this mindset.

    “I mean this when I say this – both you and Jennifer are exceptionally insightful people of high character, wise beyond your years, who will have a lot to contribute to the future of our Christian, Western society.”

    Thanks man. That’s why I’m going to be Catholic. I’m actually not a Christian, technically. I’m unbaptized.

    What denomination are you, btw, Langobard? You seem to be a Catholic or some other type of orthodox Christian as well. Perhaps even a conservative Lutheran or Anglican as well.

    Our Western society is no longer Christian, unfortunately. Pat Buchanan has said how nations die when they lose their “mandate from Heaven”. He then went on to compare the death of Japan’s prewar and wartime faith to the dying Christianity of the West. Roissy is truly right when he says that we are living in a decline. I agree with him on that. Where I disagree is whether or not to Enjoy the Decline.

  73. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    Thanks so much for your kind words, Langobard!! :) Thank God people of your sight are around.

    Jen, ‘mega dittos’ to you…

    I most heartily return the the sentiment, and compliment, to you as well!

  74. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    I’ll admit, I fell into a period of nihilism, utilitarianism, and hedonism back when I’d read Roissy and IMF every single day. I still struggle with residual aspects of this mindset.

    Yes brother, all of us (‘red-pill Christians’, that is) struggle with the residual aspects of this mindset, as you say, but always pray to God that the Holy Spirit dwells within you, and guides you continuously to the Truth – in all it’s aspects.

    Thanks man. That’s why I’m going to be Catholic. I’m actually not a Christian, technically. I’m unbaptized.

    That is beautiful. I am very happy to hear that.

    What denomination are you, btw, Langobard? You seem to be a Catholic or some other type of orthodox Christian as well. Perhaps even a conservative Lutheran or Anglican as well.

    You guessed correct, I am a Catholic (although the times I have went with friends to Protestant services, especially those of the Lutherans and Anglicans I felt very at home.

    Our Western society is no longer Christian, unfortunately. Pat Buchanan has said how nations die when they lose their “mandate from Heaven”. He then went on to compare the death of Japan’s prewar and wartime faith to the dying Christianity of the West. …

    So, soooo true here.

    Pat Buchanan is simply a modern-day American Jeremiah.

    I had the most fortunate pleasure of meeting (and having a lengthy conversation with) him and hi lovely wife once in DC, and let me tell you – he is the genuine article through and through.

    *As well, spoke with Tom Fleming and a few of the other guys at Chronicles on occasion, and they are sincerely devoted to what they write about and believe in.

  75. Svar August 25, 2011 at 7:29 pm #

    “Yes brother, all of us (‘red-pill Christians’, that is) struggle with the residual aspects of this mindset, as you say, but always pray to God that the Holy Spirit dwells within you, and guides you continuously to the Truth – in all it’s aspects.”

    I have trouble remembering to pray. I don’t know any actual prayers so my language when I pray is rather casual(but respectful). I have a hard time trying to feel God’s grace. I believe mainly from an intellectual perspective not an emotional or spiritual one. But I’ll get there. This wonderful post by Ulysses touches upon that: http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/sunlight-through-stained-glass/

    “You guessed correct, I am a Catholic (although the times I have went with friends to Protestant services, especially those of the Lutherans and Anglicans I felt very at home.”

    Nice! I could tell you were a Catholic when you agreed with my statement that equality doesn’t exist since hierarchy is present in both the world and the Church. I actually am quite fond of Protestants; yes, I am sort of chauvinistic but not at Tolkienesque levels. Alte has said that many Protestants are actually more Catholic than most Catholics. She does have a point. I’ll probably end up marrying a Prot-girl. Better a Prot-girl than a Cafeteria Catholic one, right?

    Are you a monarchist by any chance?

    “Pat Buchanan is simply a modern-day American Jeremiah.

    I had the most fortunate pleasure of meeting (and having a lengthy conversation with) him and hi lovely wife once in DC, and let me tell you – he is the genuine article through and through.

    *As well, spoke with Tom Fleming and a few of the other guys at Chronicles on occasion, and they are sincerely devoted to what they write about and believe in.”

    Wow, really? I really admire Pat Buchanan. He’s more intelligent and insightful than those neo-cons but he isn’t cruel and mean-spirited like many nihilistic, pagan-influenced, and “genetics-over-culture” alt-righters.

    I assume you didn’t meet Tom Flemings and the other men from Chronicles in person like you did with Pat Buchanan.

    I’ve enjoyed talking to you here, Langobard. Feel free to email me: svarragan@gmail.com

  76. Svar August 25, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    “Yes brother, all of us (‘red-pill Christians’, that is) struggle with the residual aspects of this mindset, as you say, but always pray to God that the Holy Spirit dwells within you, and guides you continuously to the Truth – in all it’s aspects.”

    I have trouble remembering to pray. I don’t know any actual prayers so my language when I pray is rather casual(but respectful). I have a hard time trying to feel God’s grace. I believe mainly from an intellectual perspective not an emotional or spiritual one. But I’ll get there. This wonderful post by Ulysses touches upon that: http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/sunlight-through-stained-glass/

    “You guessed correct, I am a Catholic (although the times I have went with friends to Protestant services, especially those of the Lutherans and Anglicans I felt very at home.”

    Nice! I could tell you were a Catholic when you agreed with my statement that equality doesn’t exist since hierarchy is present in both the world and the Church. I actually am quite fond of Protestants; yes, I am sort of chauvinistic but not at Tolkienesque levels. Alte has said that many Protestants are actually more Catholic than most Catholics. She does have a point. I’ll probably end up marrying a Prot-girl. Better a Prot-girl than a Cafeteria Catholic one, right?

    Are you a monarchist by any chance?

    “Pat Buchanan is simply a modern-day American Jeremiah.

    I had the most fortunate pleasure of meeting (and having a lengthy conversation with) him and hi lovely wife once in DC, and let me tell you – he is the genuine article through and through.

    *As well, spoke with Tom Fleming and a few of the other guys at Chronicles on occasion, and they are sincerely devoted to what they write about and believe in.”

    Wow, really? I really admire Pat Buchanan. He’s more intelligent and insightful than those neo-cons but he isn’t cruel and mean-spirited like many nihilistic, pagan-influenced, and “genetics-over-culture” alt-righters.

    I assume you didn’t meet Tom Flemings and the other men from Chronicles in person like you did with Pat Buchanan.

  77. Svar August 25, 2011 at 7:49 pm #

    I’ve enjoyed talking to you here, Langobard. Feel free to email me: svarragan@gmail.com

  78. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 8:12 pm #

    I have trouble remembering to pray. I don’t know any actual prayers so my language when I pray is rather casual(but respectful). I have a hard time trying to feel God’s grace. I believe mainly from an intellectual perspective not an emotional or spiritual one. …

    How very interesting, since I have struggled, and often still do, with these very same issues, especially having a tendency to default in viewing things intellectually over things spiritually. But, As God perfectly understands, this is to be expected from us mere mortals. (*Fantastic link from Ulysses, btw).

    Alte has said that many Protestants are actually more Catholic than most Catholics. She does have a point. I’ll probably end up marrying a Prot-girl. Better a Prot-girl than a Cafeteria Catholic one, right?

    Lol – that’s certainly possible!

    Whoever you marry, Prot or Catholic, just make sure that she is sincere in her Faith, since a lot of the Protestant denominations have been co-opted by the insidious forces of Gnosticism and “this-world’liness” rather than relying on Scripture.

    Wow, really? I really admire Pat Buchanan. He’s more intelligent and insightful than those neo-cons but he isn’t cruel and mean-spirited like many nihilistic, pagan-influenced, and “genetics-over-culture” alt-righters.

    Again, Pat is simply a Renaissance man down to the marrow of his bones. And, you are spot-on with the observation of the latter – unfortunately many of them are social Darwinists to the core, as is too much of the ‘Game’ theorists/manosphere advocates and followers.

    I assume you didn’t meet Tom Flemings and the other men from Chronicles in person like you did with Pat Buchanan.

    Yes,spoke with Tom, and Scott Richter, and had very interesting, and lengthy, phone conversations with the gentlemen.

  79. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    I’ve enjoyed talking to you here, Langobard. Feel free to email me:

    Thoroughly enjoyed talking to you as well, and thanks for the e-mail, brother.

  80. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    I agree that everybody cannot be equal all the tme, but disagree about the level of hierarchy in a church. Funny, I almost forgot about the comment Langobard made. I wonder what men like Roissy believe will be left for them if they enjoy the decline instead of fighting it?

  81. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    “No, was it on Fox News or something?”

    No, Phyllis Schaffly did an article on it, which was linked to from another source.

    “Yes brother, all of us (‘red-pill Christians’, that is) struggle with the residual aspects of this mindset”

    Really? I thought the red pill just meant acknowledging that men and women are different, often attracted to unhealthy things, feminism sucks, we need to act like our own genders, etc. Well, I guess with all that in mind it WOULD sometimes be hard to resist the nihilistic mindset..

    Svar, I didn’t know you had a hard time praying. It can be such a beautiful experience; it’s saved my life a few times.

    Langobard, are you Irish?

  82. Svar August 25, 2011 at 8:49 pm #

    “I agree that everybody cannot be equal all the tme, but disagree about the level of hierarchy in a church.”

    But the Church disagrees with you and it’s positions are based in Scripture. Neither Social Darwinism or Radical Egalitarianism is compatible with Christianity. I have an article coming up on Traditional Christianity that touches on this. God, Country, Monarchy.

    “I wonder what men like Roissy believe will be left for them if they enjoy the decline instead of fighting it?”

    Unfortunately, we can not fight the decline. Civilizations are like people; they are born to die. It’s apart of the inevitable flow of time. History is cyclical after all. What we can do is rebuild after the collapse and reinstate Christendom.

  83. Svar August 25, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    “Yes,spoke with Tom, and Scott Richter, and had very interesting, and lengthy, phone conversations with the gentlemen.”

    That is very interesting. What did you men talk about?

    I’m glad that many of the men here read Chronicles. Better than either Fox News or Alternative Right. Will S is the man who taught me about Chronicles and David Collard has also mentioned reading it.

  84. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 8:53 pm #

    Svar, the Catholic church has many aspects that are not originally from Scripture. We will simply never agree on that. And disagreeing that hierarchy exists in severe levels everywhere doesn’t mean buying the radical idea that everyone must be on the exact same level all the time (especially in everything).

  85. Svar August 25, 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    “Svar, I didn’t know you had a hard time praying. It can be such a beautiful experience; it’s saved my life a few times. ”

    Really? How has it saved your life, Jen?

    “Really? I thought the red pill just meant acknowledging that men and women are different, often attracted to unhealthy things, feminism sucks, we need to act like our own genders, etc. Well, I guess with all that in mind it WOULD sometimes be hard to resist the nihilistic mindset..”

    Well, it’s not all nihilistic at first but the nihilism sucks you in until you are fully overwhelmed with despair. I talk about this in the Rahab thread on Trad Christianity. Nihilism is something truly difficult to overcome. I’m still struggling and I lapse in and out every now and then.

  86. Svar August 25, 2011 at 9:00 pm #

    “Svar, the Catholic church has many aspects that are not originally from Scripture. We will simply never agree on that. ”

    Jen, the Catholic Church is one of the two great orthodox Christian traditions. It and the Orthodox Churches of the East have a 2000 year history. If any Church were to adhere to Scripture the most, it would be the orthodox ones. We may not agree, but ultimately it all lies within Scripture.

    “And disagreeing that hierarchy exists in severe levels everywhere doesn’t mean buying the radical idea that everyone must be on the exact same level all the time (especially in everything).”

    Hierarchy exists in both the natural world and within the Church. David Collard has said that it seems that God either tolerates or prefers hierarchy. Regardless, I disagree with both Social Darwinism and Radical Egalitarianism. I am patriarchal and paternalistic in my worldview.

  87. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    The orthodox churches do have some views that are very separate from Scripture, where it does indeed all lie. I don’t agree with radical egalism, since I know everyone’s not equal, but that doesn’t mean I believe there should be hierarchy within everything either.

    “How has it saved your life, Jen?”

    :) I have anxiety and depression, as well as OCD. I latch on to some things that branch from my beliefs, and I can become sick with worry over them; God has calmed me. Satan has also tried to twist my brain with sick lies, attacking my very soul’s fabric, and God saved me from loss. He does this both with other people, and with His own private reassurance.

  88. Svar August 25, 2011 at 9:17 pm #

    “:) I have anxiety and depression, as well as OCD. I latch on to some things that branch from my beliefs, and I can become sick with worry over them; God has calmed me. ”

    I feel for you, Jen. I hope God keeps you calm.

    “Satan has also tried to twist my brain with sick lies, attacking my very soul’s fabric, and God saved me from loss.”

    What sick lies, Jen?

    “The orthodox churches do have some views that are very separate from Scripture, where it does indeed all lie.”

    Jen, it all comes down to 2000 years of orthodoxy and 500 years of the Protestant “Reformation”(heh, I told you I was a bit of a Tolkienesque chauvinist).

    “I don’t agree with radical egalism, since I know everyone’s not equal, but that doesn’t mean I believe there should be hierarchy within everything either.”

    But hierarchy exists within nature. It is a part of Creation.

  89. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

    I don’t think you get what I mean about hierarchy, svar. I am NOT talking about believing that everyone has the exact same amount of ability, strength, or talents; when left to its own, the strong beats out the weaker in nature. But I do not believe it’s meant to be so in church; the Bible doesn’t recognize cardinals or popes, and not once does it describe the church as being congregation, then pastor, then God; there is no such hierarchy. I don’t care about the history of the church; that merely means it’s old, not Biblically accurate, and many faulted systems have survived for many years. It infuriates me how clueless people are about true damn equality; being equal in a marriage for example does not mean that both spouses make the EXACT SAME number of decisions; it merely means they respect each other’s voices and opinions equally instead of making one spouse the veto voter, and the over-ruler. If we went by “natural hierarchy” in nature, men would be rulers over women because they’re stronger, and this is not intelligent or Christian. I’m getting highly irritated about this, and would prefer not to discuss it further. I’m sorry, it’s an OCD issue right now.

    Thank you a lot for your kind wishes. I will never repeat the sick shit Satan’s tried to poison me with

  90. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 9:46 pm #

    Svar, I’m sorry I went off on you there. I really do appreciate your kind wishes; God has helped me stay calm a lot :) The last few days have been especially great. Sometimes it’s hard for me to know, among other things, how to give my opinion without worrying what will happen if I don’t! (Online, I mean). I know I can’t control everything, but seeing certain lack of sense in so many issues makes me want to tear strands of my hair out; you’ve probably felt the same way on occasion, like any Christian would. If you’re not a severe liberal or a severe conservative, the middle is a healthy but tough place to be at times.

  91. Jennifer August 25, 2011 at 9:48 pm #

    Just so you know, I have studied matters of Catholicism I’m curious about, and disagree with their views on my findings. This doesn’t mean I don’t respect them, just that they, like every other group, don’t have everything completely right.

  92. Svar August 26, 2011 at 5:15 am #

    “I know I can’t control everything, but seeing certain lack of sense in so many issues makes me want to tear strands of my hair out; you’ve probably felt the same way on occasion, like any Christian would.”

    What lack of sense, Jen? Equality doesn’t exist period.

    “If you’re not a severe liberal or a severe conservative, the middle is a healthy but tough place to be at times.”

    I’m a small c-conservative. I’m not an ideologue. The spectrum is actually very wide and I rather moderate on most issues.

    “Just so you know, I have studied matters of Catholicism I’m curious about, and disagree with their views on my findings.”

    Jen, many of the Protestant churches agree with Catholic stances on marriage, atleast.

    “This doesn’t mean I don’t respect them, just that they, like every other group, don’t have everything completely right.”

    True, but the way I look at it, they have it more right.

  93. Svar August 26, 2011 at 5:47 am #

    http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/roissy%E2%80%99s-maxims/

    Here’s a good article by Solomon II. Lorelai’s men would be better off if they were to come upon that article.

  94. Svar August 26, 2011 at 6:17 am #

    “If we went by “natural hierarchy” in nature, men would be rulers over women because they’re stronger, and this is not intelligent or Christian.”

    How is it not intelligent or Christian? It seems like a smart idea, atleast, haha. If patriarchy hadn’t worked, it wouldn’t have been around for so long. All new-born civilizations start out as hierarchical patriarchies and when they decline, both hierarchy and patriarchy go out the window. FishEaters shows this their book The Garbage Generation. Yamamoto Tsunetomo shows the same exact thing in his old, old book the Hagakure.

    As for it being Christian, it seems that it is Christian.

  95. Jennifer August 26, 2011 at 6:50 am #

    “Equality doesn’t exist period”

    I think you still don’t know what I mean by it, but whatever. I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome. Anyway, I was responding to several different things I’ve seen that lack sense.

    “If patriarchy hadn’t worked, it wouldn’t have been around for so long”

    Slavery “worked” for a long time too. There’s a difference between men running the government and protecting a country, and ruling/limiting women’s choices at the same time. Women need to focus now more on their children; this doesn’t mean returning to Middle Age systems. If you suppress a group long enough, they’ll always eventually recoil.

    Solomon II doesn’t sound like he’d be a good mate either. Not saying he’s wrong about Lorelei, but still.

  96. Jennifer August 26, 2011 at 7:06 am #

    Lord, another guy wrote a post that lost my respect: if you up your game, dump the lower-scale woman you have and get a higher one. How do you know she might be lower-scale? If she’s surprised at your attraction and has low self-esteem. Heartbreakingly cruel and chumpishly arrogant; another guy bites the dust on my respect scale.

  97. Svar August 26, 2011 at 8:03 am #

    “If you suppress a group long enough, they’ll always eventually recoil.”

    Only if things get slightly better like right before the French Revolution. If things stay the same or get worse, rebellion will not ensue. This is shown by history. And look at the French? What did they do right after they slaughtered their Christian royalty and nobility? They ran into the loving arms of Napoleon Bonaparte. In the same way, women, overthrowing their patriarchal “oppressors” now run into the loving arms of Roissy, Tucker, Ferd, and Solomon II.

    “Slavery “worked” for a long time too.”

    This is a red herring, Jen. Slavery is not necessary for a successful civilization and history shows that slavery may actually harm a civilization like in the case of the Confederacy and their black slaves, the Aztecs and their Amerindian slaves, as well as the Spartans and their helots. Patriarchy on the other hand is correlated with successful civilizations like that of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. So is virtue and a healthy respect for manhood. This is a constant in both pagan and Christian societies.

  98. Jennifer August 26, 2011 at 9:31 am #

    There’s no way the French would have kept on starving and dying off without taking action. I told you before Svar; there’s a difference between encouraging men to work and protect like patriarchy does, and limiting women’s choices. Women are meant to do more, so it would come up sooner or later.

    “What did they do right after they slaughtered their Christian royalty and nobility?”

    And that was a disaster, but they recovered and survived. We don’t have to be in the extreme of either men ruling us or everyone going crazy. As I said, agree to disagree; we disagree on monarchy as well, so I guess it’s natural.

  99. Svar August 26, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    “There’s no way the French would have kept on starving and dying off without taking action.”

    Trust me. If the “Enlightenment” hadn’t taken place, the American Revolution quelled, and if Louis the Sixteenth hadn’t implicitly supported the French Revolution(this last point is a big one. If Louis had put his fist down it would have been stopped) it would have never happened. Regardless, the modern-day French Republic is trash compared to the Old French Monarchy.

    “I told you before Svar; there’s a difference between encouraging men to work and protect like patriarchy does, and limiting women’s choices. Women are meant to do more, so it would come up sooner or later. ”

    “As I said, agree to disagree; we disagree on monarchy as well, so I guess it’s natural.”

    Men are always right, Jen. Keep that in mind, haha.
    That sounds like having it both ways, but I guess that’s somewhat right.

  100. Jennifer August 26, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    Thank you svar :P But I am convinced the French monarchy would have ruptured one way or another; that many starving people could not be quelled.

  101. Jennifer August 26, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    Still, I’d rather like it if France still had their beautiful royalty, like England. That was a tragedy.

  102. Langobard August 26, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    Langobard, are you Irish?

    Jen – thanks for asking, and I am curious on what made you think so?

    Although I love the Irish, I am Northern Italian, hence my moniker, “Langobard” (Longbeard – or in alte Deutsch, “Lombard”).

  103. Jennifer August 26, 2011 at 4:43 pm #

    Hi Langobard. You used the term “article”, as in “so and so is the genuine article” or something like that, and that’s a way of speaking I’ve seen the Irish use.

  104. Langobard August 29, 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    Only if things get slightly better like right before the French Revolution. If things stay the same or get worse, rebellion will not ensue. This is shown by history. And look at the French? What did they do right after they slaughtered their Christian royalty and nobility? They ran into the loving arms of Napoleon Bonaparte. … @Svar

    Oh yes, the series of unfortunate affairs that befell France after the “French” revolution – especially its ominous repudiation of Christianity – has put that country in one calamity after another.

    Still, I’d rather like it if France still had their beautiful royalty, like England. @Jen

    Me as well Jen.

    On Monarchy: Let us remember that not all monarchies, or monarchs, ruled in the same, or even approximate fashion. In other words, some were, like any other rulers, way better and more benevolent to their people than others.

    The longest lasting European monarch was Emperor Francis Joseph (“Kaiser Franz Josef”) of Austria/Austria-Hungary, who reigned from 1848 to 1916.

    He was a caring and decent man and sovereign, and most importantly of all, he was a devout Christian/Catholic, who was highly esteemed by all the peoples who made up that large and diverse European empire – one of the greatest in its day.

    Here is a video of a reenactment Of Kaiser Franz and Kaiserin ‘Sisi’ (his wife, Elizebeth of Bavaria) entering Vienna’s Schönbrunn Palace, played to the tune of Trumpet Voluntary by the magnificent André Rieu –

  105. Badger April 12, 2014 at 4:48 pm #

    Just referenced this excellent summary of GG in this comment elsewhere: http://www.justfourguys.com/j4g-mailbag-ferrum-throws-down-the-gender-gauntlet/#comment-18964

    Keep it real.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s