Cowards, Chauvinists, and Dalrock

Something very interesting is going on over at Dalrock’s blog.

Dalrock is the biggest blogger out there in the Christian MRA category of blogs. Christian MRAs, as the name suggests, are a hybrid between MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) and Christians. Christianity and being an MRA is a strange combination, I will admit, but there is a fairly easy to identify grouping of blogs that have in common emphasis on Christianity and Christian principles such as male headship and at the same time echo a lot of “men’s rights” themes and show a strong bias towards focusing on women’s sins while ignoring men’s sins and in general show a lot of the same male narcissistic tendencies that MRAs display in spades.

This Christian MRA phenomenon is quite new; Dalrock’s blog is a little over 3 years old and I would say the whole Christian MRA scene overall is no more than 5 years old. I in general view the rise of the Christian MRAs as being a good thing because it indicates Christianity “invading” or “taking over” the MRAs. This is good because it indicates MRAs, or at least a section of MRAs, wanting to migrate towards a more positive and constructive view of life which is something that Christianity offers. The Christian MRA is still an MRA however and therefore is still “contaminated” by many distasteful MRA habits of thought and orientation.

So what is new at Dalrock’s blog; something I haven’t seen before; is that Dalrock is being challenged on his own territory, in the comments section, by some real Christians (“real Christians” in the sense of having views typical of those supporting Christian complementarianism). Not just one contrarian either but a group of them; Matthew King, Earl, and Michael being the most prominent ones. Dalrock is not just brushing off or ignoring these commenters who are attacking his main theme; he is instead attacking them back head on. Things got started with Dalrock doing his regular routine of holding up Mark Driscoll for some ritualistic ridicule for daring to exhort men to “man up” in his “Brilliant Advertising” post. Things however took an unexpected turn when Matthew King, Earl, and Michael showed up to take Dalrock and his band of supportive commenters on. Dalrock then became embroiled in the fight with two follow-up posts; “The Sin of Modern Christian Men” and “Fragging Christian Headship.” Dalrock’s main argument is that those who tell men to “man up” and criticize men for their shortcomings in an effort to encourage men to become better men or who suggest that husbands need to first obey God faithfully before they can expect their wives to obey them are encouraging “feminist rebellion” and are therefore committing sin or facilitating sin.

The problem with Dalrock’s formulation is that it is a classic “men’s rights” approach to things; men must never be criticized or told to take responsibility for their actions in regards to their relationships with women because only women sin and only women have responsibility. Dalrock is very eager to accuse the men who seek to impose responsibilities upon men of “being sinful” on the basis that any criticism of men or responsibilities imposed upon men gives aid and comfort to “feminist rebellion.” Other than this however men are to be held blameless; only women’s shortcomings are to be highlighted and talked about.

Dalrock’s post “Fragging Christian Headship” starts out with a little gem from Mark Driscoll:

Dalrock’s quote from Mark Driscoll (from “Fragging Christian Headship”):

“Lord God, as well, I pray for those men who are here that are cowards. They are silent passive impish worthless men. They are making a mess of everything in their life. And they are such sweet little boys that no one ever confronts them on that. I pray for the women who enable them, who permit them to continue in folly, those who are mothers, sisters, girlfriends and wives. I pray Lord God for men who are chauvinists. Those who are mean who are brash who are rude who are harsh. Who Lord God think they are tough when in fact they are satanic…”

I know that Dalrock’s intent is to make Mark Driscoll look bad with this quote; that Mark Driscoll is a man basher shamelessly pandering to women and “fragging headship” as Dalrock puts it. There is nothing wrong with what Driscoll said however; Driscoll is not “fragging headship” or encouraging “feminist rebellion,” he is actually supporting headship and undermining feminist rebellion by setting standards of behavior for the men of his church. When men rise to meet the behavioral standards that Driscoll is setting for them they will be competent as masculine heads of household and they will present themselves to their wives as men deserving of respect and deference.

Here is the entire prayer that Dalrock quoted from (the bold part is the segment Dalrock used for his quote):

Marriage and Men – Mark Driscoll March 22, 2009
6:54 to 8:15

“Father God, I pray that our time would be pleasing to you, that it would be profitable to us. Lord God, as well, I pray for those men who are here that are cowards. They are silent passive impish worthless men. They are making a mess of everything in their life. And they are such sweet little boys that no one ever confronts them on that. I pray for the women who enable them, who permit them to continue in folly, those who are mothers, sisters, girlfriends and wives. I pray Lord God for men who are chauvinists. Those who are mean who are brash who are rude who are harsh. Who Lord God think they are tough when in fact they are satanic. God I pray for those men, that they would have the courage today to not fight with a woman, but to fight with You. To actually find their rightful place in creation, that they might receive a good rebuke so that they can become honorable rather than dishonorable sons. God I pray for my tone, I pray for our men, and I pray for the women who are listening in. I pray Lord God that they would know this comes from a heart of passion, deep concern, and love. I pray Lord God that we would think Biblically and critically and humbly and repentantly and that Lord God there would be dramatic life change by the power of the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus. Amen.”

This prayer that Mark Driscoll used to start off his sermon was a set up for what was to come later, a kind of introduction to the subject of his talk. Later on Driscoll goes into detail about what he is referring to regarding the “silent passive impish worthless men” who are “such sweet little boys that no one ever confronts them.” And he goes into detail about the “chauvinists” who are “mean, brash, rude, and harsh.” There is nothing wrong with Mark Driscoll giving a portrait of ways that manhood goes wrong and highlighting what the faults of such men are. Driscoll puts masculine dysfunction into two major categories; the cowards and the chauvinists. The cowards are weak and passive and avoid responsibility while the chauvinists brazenly and aggressively “get what they want” without concern for others. Both approaches are wrong, both types of error need to be corrected; this is the central theme of Driscoll’s sermon. Harsh critical judgment and condemnation of men showing these bad character traits is perfectly legitimate; it is a central feature of Driscoll’s style as a preacher and it is what makes his church (Mars Hill Church) as successful as it is. Sin needs to be pointed out in order to be corrected.

In Driscoll’s sermon, Marriage and Men, he says something interesting about men’s duty to financially provide for their families. While going through a list of the different ways men need to honor their wives Driscoll comes to honoring your wife financially:

Marriage and Men – Mark Driscoll March 22, 2009
42:44 to 43:30

“Do you honor her financially? If a man does not provide for the needs of his family he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. There’s a verse [in the Bible that says that]. See, the woman’s curse was her children [suffering pain during childbirth] and submitting to her husband. The man’s curse was providing for his family. [Referring to the story of Adam and Eve.] And what the weakest, most impish worthless men among us do is, “Oh, my load is heavy, I know yours is heavy but I need you to carry half of mine to.” Men, you’ve got to work, you’ve got to work hard, you’ve got to outwork the other men if you want to feed your family. That’s your responsibility as a man. If you want any men to respect you, if you want your wife to respect you, if you want your children to respect you, you pay the bills. You make the money, you feed the family.”

I will leave you all with this excerpt from Driscoll’s sermon to ponder over (the capitalized part is where Driscoll gets passionate, where he’s yelling):

Marriage and Men – Mark Driscoll March 22, 2009
52:14 to 53:41

“What happens to a guy who doesn’t do what Peter says [in the Bible], what does he say? Read it for yourself. It said “so your prayers may not be hindered.” If a guy doesn’t obey God on these issues, GOD DOES NOT LISTEN TO HIM! YOU MEN ARE DATING, MARRYING, GOD’S DAUGHTERS. DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN HIT HER, NEGLECT HER, ABUSE HER, IMPREGNATE HER OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, PUT YOUR HANDS ALL OVER HER, LIE TO HER, MANIPULATE HER, ABUSE HER, NEGLECT HER, and then cry out to God, “Help me.” God’s saying “No way.” [God’s saying] “You don’t love my daughter, I don’t serve you. You don’t honor my daughter, I don’t honor you. YOU ARE OWN YOUR OWN!” [Driscoll speaking] AND MANY OF YOU MEN, THE REASON YOU HAVE A HARD TIME WALKING WITH GOD, IS BECAUSE YOU WALKED AWAY, AND HE [God] HAS TURNED HIS BACK ON YOU! YOU ARE DAMAGING HIS DAUGTER! GOD IS HER FATHER! YOU CANNOT THINK THAT IN ABUSING GOD’S DAUGHTER, THAT YOU CAN CRY OUT FOR GOD’S HELP IN YOUR ABUSING OF HIS DAUGHTER! I’ll tell you as a daddy, you hurt one of my girls, and ask for help to do it some more, you’re prayer will not be answered.”



Mark Driscoll’s “Trial” Sermon Series
January 11, 2009 to August 2, 2009
Marriage and Men is Part 10 of the “Trial” Series

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Political Analysis, Religious Instruction and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Cowards, Chauvinists, and Dalrock

  1. Matt King and Earl are traditional complementarians? You mean when Matt isn’t gaming secular feminists and Earl isn’t fantasizing about one day marrying a modern day incarnation of the Virgin Mary?

  2. Matthew King says:

    This is a fair summary, and I appreciate the relatively straight reporting. But you shoot yourself in the foot when you paraphrase Mr. Dalrock this way:

    The problem with Dalrock’s formulation is that it is a classic “men’s rights” approach to things; men must never be criticized or told to take responsibility for their actions in regards to their relationships with women because only women sin and only women have responsibility.

    You make the mistake of using “always” and “never” and “only” as amplifying modifiers, and a straight reading of those words comes off as unfair. Mr. Dalrock is like the rest of us who fight from a severe minority position — we can’t risk agreeing with the other side because concessions sound like capitulations, and with our little toehold on the beach, there’s not much territory we can afford to lose to the surrounding general culture. It’s largely a consideration of morale. I think Mr. Dalrock would agree that men sin too! But his focus is on female sin because he has to concentrate his dissent.

    “Men must [not] be criticized” is a tendency of Mr. Dalrock because of his mission, but it is merely a tendency, not a policy or commandment; and it is an understandable tendency given the overwhelming opposition.

    But your point that he tends to rig the game is spot on. He doesn’t realize how he is sacrificing his long-term integrity by being disingenuous about male culpability. He would broaden his audience significantly if he wasn’t so paranoid about the purity of would-be allies. I speak from experience as a rejected ally. I have perhaps the exact same position as his with regard to marriage and the church, but I want to vanquish my enemies through conversion, and he thinks confrontation is more honest. It’s a difference in strategy. “The voice of one crying in the wilderness” (John 1:23) is good to rally initial attention among true believers, but it is prone to devolving into a cultish obsession over purity.

    The pertinent maxim with regard to Driscoll and Bennett and the Kellers (and me) is Abraham Lincoln’s: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” And that is how a fledgling idea takes flight. By addition rather than subtraction. It has the added benefit of being Christlike with an emphasis on forgiveness, conversion, the deliverance of prodigal sons, and the salvation of even the worst sinners.


  3. It’s not that men should be held blameless; it’s that they shouldn’t be held accountable by those who are accountable to them. The buck has to stop somewhere. Men are entirely willing to take the blame for things that go wrong in a marriage, so long as they are given corresponding authority. Measured submission is no submission at all.

    This may not penetrate. Very well: wait fifty years.

  4. oblivion says:

    men’s rights” approach to things; men must never be criticized or told to take responsibility for their actions in regards to their relationships with women because only women sin and only women have responsibility

    yep, that quote showed how stupid you are. have u really read dalrocks posts?? only women sin??? are u out of your freaking mind????

  5. Responding to Matthew King.

    Of course when I used the modifiers “always” “never” and “only” regarding Dalrock focusing on female sin and ignoring male sin I was exaggerating for emphasis; but I don’t think I was exaggerating by much which is why I thought the absolute modifiers appropriate for emphasis. I have followed Dalrock occasionally for a long time and it would be very hard for me to come up with a counter-example of Dalrock criticizing men for selfish or harmful behavior in relation to women. Criticizing men for giving into feminism or enabling feminism doesn’t count in this regard because such criticism is primarily against women and only secondarily against men as derivative of the primary sins of women. Actual criticism aimed directly at men for ways that men harm women for selfish gain is very rare at Dalrock’s site which is why I felt justified in characterizing Dalrock in the way I did.

    Dalrock’s blog is a Christian MRA site; I don’t think Dalrock himself would object to being categorized as a “Christian MRA.” The “MRA” part at the end is there precisely because of the affiliation with the wider MRA phenomenon; MRAs in general being averse to criticism of men or imposing responsibilities upon men, Dalrock not being an exception to this which is why he has earned the “MRA” modifier and is therefore a “Christian MRA.”

    I’ve known that Dalrock specializes in attacking incipient feminism in the church and uncovering “stealth feminism” for a long time and it never really bothered me because I figured it was a useful role to play even if the obsession with “female sin” while ignoring male sin was annoying. The latest campaign of posts however directly attacking Driscoll as “fragging headship” and portraying Dennis Rainey as pandering to feminist sensibilities and his direct attack against commenters who are simply trying to emphasize male responsibility; this is leading me to see Dalrock in a more negative light.

    Instead of Dalrock simply trying to ferret out uncover feminism in disguise it seems that Dalrock is actually opposed to pastors in church settings criticizing men at all for any reason; that any criticism of men is ipso facto support for “feminist rebellion” and therefore shameful pandering to the female part of their congregations and the wider feminist biases in the culture at large.

    I’m OK with attacking stealth feminism in Christianity as a specialty of focus but I am not OK with a blanket prohibition against any criticism of men in church settings combined with unsavory vicious attacks against any preachers not “toeing the line” Dalrock is presuming to impose upon them in their affairs within their own churches.

  6. That’s funny Matt, here Jesse is pointing out the size and reach of Dalrock’s blog and you were very recently arguing about how small the choir was that he was preaching to. Forgot which side of your mouth you were speaking out of again?

  7. If Dalrock is guilty of pandering to men and not pointing out their sins, what can we say of “ministries” such as FamilyLife and Focus on the Family who cannot bring a stern word against women without spending 3 times that amount of time prefacing it with non-stop pandering (when they bring anything at all)? Even if Dalrock is precisely what you say he is, which I would dispute, how could he not be looked upon as balance for a society seriously bent towards feminism? Does every space has to tickle the ears of women in order to “be effective”? That seems to be the pervasive argument these days and that is why men are bailing out faster than Driscoll can screech “How Dare You!”.

    If someone wants to see two minutes of hate they need look no farther than the typical Father’s Day message at the local church on the corner. How does pointing this out make us cowards? I think cowards are the ones with all of the weapons of feminism trained on their enemies and the wind of society at their back, bragging about how they are dealing in “hard truths”.

  8. Responding to seriouslydropit.

    You’re saying people shouldn’t be held accountable by those who are accountable to them? I’m not so sure about that. Yes there is a gender hierarchy, men above women, but I don’t think that means the woman should never criticize or express unhappiness with the man. Perhaps what you’re getting at is that other men seeking to hold a husband to account for his behavior is legitimate but that the wife herself should not be the one taking the initiative to “impose accountability” upon her own husband? I guess I would phrase things a bit differently. The wife can express displeasure and offer feedback legitimately on her own initiative but as far as “imposing correction” on the husband the wife should appeal to other men for more forceful support and then the men should judge as men whether the husband is in sin on objective criteria and then offer more forceful support to the woman if appropriate.

    You say that measured submission is no submission at all. I don’t think I agree with that. Submission is always measured due to the objective reality of free will and independent judgment. Surely one could invent a scenario of extreme circumstances where the wife obeying the husband is not a good idea. All legitimate authority is ultimately derived from God; the man does not have legitimate authority simply based on him being a man; there has to be an underlying assumption that the man himself is obeying God before obedience to the man makes sense. If the husband himself is manifestly in rebellion against God I don’t see how the duty of the wife to obey the husband still holds.

    Driscoll talks about how it is disrespectful of a wife to enable the sins of her husband. Driscoll also talks about the wife being the referee of how her husband is treating her. Driscoll says the wife is the referee of whether the husband is loving enough towards her and the husband is the referee of whether the wife is respecting him. You may not see Driscoll as being the ultimate authority on these questions but at least Driscoll saying these things indicates that blind obedience to the husband is not necessarily mandated by Christian teachings.

  9. Responding to I Art Laughing at August 21, 2013 at 2:45 am.

    I assume this comment is directed towards me. I’ve heard the argument of being one sided for the purpose of “balance” a lot. Such an approach is not my philosophy and I tend to take people at their word. If someone presents themselves as biased then I assume they are biased. I understand someone specializing in a pet cause but focus on a particular issue or problem doesn’t justify bias. Dalrock was not just criticizing stealth feminism which I would not object to; Dalrock took the extra step of affirmatively attacking Mark Driscoll, Dennis Rainey, and other big names in the newly emerging Christian complementarian movement in the United States. This goes beyond focusing on a niche that needs addressing; this is deliberately seeking to impose a “male friendly” bias upon people who in my judgment are doing their best to provide good teachings to their audience and followers both male and female.

    I’m not criticizing Dalrock for not “being effective,” that is more Matthew King’s complaint. Dalrock has a spectacularly effective blog; I am jealous of Dalrock’s audience. I do think that people are off base though when they claim that Driscoll and his “man up” tirades are driving men away from the church. Entirely to the contrary; young men eat up a father figure like Driscoll screaming at them to “man up.” It means that Driscoll cares about them, wants them to be better men, and if they can live up to Driscoll’s demands of them then that is a way they can become a good Christian and a REAL MAN. Driscoll has real appeal to men not based on pandering to feminism but based on pushing men to be better men.

  10. Jesse, an affirmative attack on Driscoll and Rainey is justified as much as an affirmative attack on Dalrock is, is it not? Are you suggesting that you haven’t observed a broad swath of bias in them? Driscoll has built his ministry on bashing men at the expense of undermining them and robbing them of respect by the wives in his congregation. I find this cowardly and out of keeping with our faith. Want to confront men? Don’t do it in mixed company. That is something that Driscoll practically specializes in. How is he making it any easier for wives to honor their husbands when he is perpetually dressing them down in the manner we have become accustomed to? How is he helping?

  11. Matthew King says:

    I wouldn’t have insulted Mr. Dalrock by characterizing him as a Men’s Rights Activist, and I don’t think he refers to himself as one, at least.

    In any event, there isn’t much activity there at all. It’s all talk talk talk.

    I suppose the word “activism” is accurate in that regard: an -ism is about mimicking the activity of the subject, an exercise in loud catharsis having nothing to do with actually addressing the subject. Like feminism is a zombified form of femininity, a nominal connection or ideology substitutes for a real appraisal of femininity per se. All wasted commotion, exercise, agitation, like a spastic, without a focus to the energy and therefore without much effect.

    So, even if he is as useless an activist as the rest of them, I still wouldn’t characterize him as a believer in “men’s rights.” As much as my estimation of him has dropped over the last few days, and as much as his readers consider themselves victims, I don’t think he has gone over completely to liberal complaining and group identity politics.


  12. Dalrock appears to embrace the label “Christian Manosphere” referring to himself; referring to what he is a part of. See this post by Dalrock:

    Backlash against the Christian Manosphere
    February 2, 2013

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen Dalrock refer to himself as an MRA and I don’t think he talks about “men’s rights” much but to me the difference between a member of the Christian Manosphere and a Christian MRA is just splitting hairs. I don’t think others view me as a part of the “Manosphere” and I don’t view myself as part of the “Manosphere.” I spend way too much time advocating for Chivalry and talking about men’s duties to serve women to qualify as part of the “Manosphere.” So Manosphere and MRA are basically equivalent to each other. Dalrock embraces the “Manosphere” even if he rejects the MRA label. To me that’s splitting hairs; Dalrock is an MRA either way, but he is a special type of MRA; a Christian MRA.

    A Christian MRA is better than a straight MRA but they are both MRAs; they both focus on men only. The Christian MRA is better than the straight MRA because of the positive Christian influence the Christian MRA accepts and incorporates into their message but the MRA taint is still there. If the MRA taint wasn’t there then they would simply be Christians and devotees of Dennis Rainey, Mark Driscoll, or some other big name popular Christian complementarian or Christian Patriarchy leader. It’s the MRA part of Dalrock that is causing him to rail against the “man up” messages of the big name highly respected Christian leaders.

    So Dalrock and the Christian MRAs in general are a subset of the wider MRA world. First came straight MRAs, then MRA blogs proliferated, then a new breed of blog that was MRA but also Christian started to emerge as a subcategory. This subset of Christian MRA blogs then started to proliferate and become impressive in their own right. Dalrock is the biggest and most successful of the Christian MRA blogs.

    What is new in my perception of Dalrock is that I am surprised at him directly attacking Mark Driscoll, Dennis Rainey, and his renegade commenters (you prominent among them) with such force. Of course these past few days are the first time I have seen Dalrock challenged on his home turf; perhaps instigating Dalrock’s forceful defense of his position. Anyways earlier I imagined Dalrock working in a kind of symbiotic relationship with the Christian complementarian pastors; that Dalrock’s role was ferreting out the manipulative pseudo-Christian feminist infiltrators in American Christianity. That interpretation of things now seems too generous to me. Instead Dalrock has been engaging in frontal attacks against prominent highly respected Christian leaders for encouraging “feminist rebellion” simply on the basis of their “man up” sermons. This is Dalrock undermining the Christian leaders, not supporting them by attacking the feminist infiltrators.

    If I had to choose between say Mark Driscoll and Dalrock I would definitely choose Mark Driscoll because Dalrock has that MRA taint and Mark Driscoll doesn’t. Dalrock’s job is keeping his MRA readers and commenters happy; Mark Driscoll’s job is creating a church culture that works and is appealing to outsiders who will want to join his church. Mark Driscoll is in a far better position for advising the society at large on cultural matters or family matters than Dalrock is.

  13. Matthew King says:

    The MRA crew always carried a subtle but repulsive odor. I could never stand to read them. Your explanation makes a connection I hadn’t seen, which explains why I find their obsessions distasteful. I wish he would have just affixed the MRA label to his web banner so I didn’t waste time on him. Even if it’s not his official mission, his style attracts victims and whiners, the kind of stunted men who would rather expend their energy howling from a safe distance at those who exhort them to get up and do rather than … getting up and doing something.

    Driscoll and Rainey and the Kellers are not perfect, nor are they my particular cup of tea, but they are out there mixing it up. It astonishes me that such a tiny minority of anonymous complainers would make their precious club still more recherche rather than building off the 90% agreements they have with people in the arena.

    I came close to being banned by him before. I didn’t think he had it in him. Leaving that audience feels like closing a heavy stone door on a crypt full of half-alive, handwringing, ghosts of men. A feebly echoing chamber of dirges. It’s a shame because there is no renaissance of men apart from Christianity. And these are the Soldiers of Christ we get? The leaders? Our Ecclesia Militans? I’d still go to war with the army we have, with Driscoll or Dalrock, it’s that important. But man, all the unforced errors before we even take the field.


  14. I’m kind of curious what you see your mission being exactly? The thing about Christian MRA blogs is that they have a secular presentation style but also talk about Christianity a lot. They also love to focus on female sins and ignore male sins; except for men supporting female sin, on that basis they’ll attack men. Indeed any focus on men’s self-improvement will be attacked because telling men to improve themselves implies they are not perfect already. To then say that men are not perfect already they claim supports feminist rebellion and is therefore sinful. This is the source of their ranting and raving against the “man up” sermons Mark Driscoll specializes in.

    You seem to have a fondness for commenting at Christian MRA blogs. This makes me think you like the Christian message being advocated in secular terms; like you want Christian thinking to be more accepted and supported in the secular realm, among those not explicitly or devoutly religious. The problem with Christian MRAs though is the MRA part, the male narcissism part. You should be aware however that the secular style of the Christian MRA is also due to the MRA part. The MRA outlook is intrinsically atheistic and anti-religious. A Christian MRA is secular in outlook and presentation style as well as being male oriented; the secular part and the male narcissism part go together.

    Me myself; I am an atheist but I also support patriarchy and very much agree with Christian complementarianism in terms of cultural practices and moral values. I am a TWRA or Traditional Women’s Rights Activist. Traditional Women’s Rights being the rights women had before feminism; centered around men’s duty to provide for and protect women, an ethic that was very strong before feminism but is now considerably weakened due to feminism. TWRAs are secular in orientation and presentation style; our goal is to advocate our moral values without a pre-existing religious faith being necessary. In other words the arguments we make should be understandable and persuasive to everyone. Christians are welcome as TWRAs, we don’t restrict people based on their religious faith; just in terms of presentation style we ask that ones arguments not require an already existing belief in ones religion.

    I wonder if your mission and the TWRA mission might overlap. We always welcome support from others. Look at my Contact page and it will tell you how to submit guest posts if you are interested in that.

    • Tony says:

      “Indeed any focus on men’s self-improvement will be attacked because telling men to improve themselves implies they are not perfect already. To then say that men are not perfect already they claim supports feminist rebellion and is therefore sinful. This is the source of their ranting and raving against the “man up” sermons Mark Driscoll specializes in.”

      I don’t think any man, Christian or not, MRA or not, is making the claim that men are without flaw, but where Driscoll and many other preachers/pastors leave themselves open to criticism, and rightfully so, is in their constant crying that males must “man up” while saying essentially nothing about the fact that women are also dropping the ball.

      For example, Driscoll suggested recently that men look for a wife amongst the many single mothers out there, said there’s a great need for that to happen. Yeah, good luck with that. How about telling women not to sleep around with men before they get married? No he’ll never give that speech.

      My Bible tells me that both sexes are flawed, that they both need correction equally, but most churches treat women with kid gloves while berating the men 95% of the time, and then they wonder why most men don’t attend church any longer.

  15. Judithann Campbell says:

    Reblogged this on Why I Am Not A Feminist.

  16. kqduane says:

    I’ll take my chances with a truly Christian man any day of the year, in any way, shape or form because they are much less likely to make “mistakes”, whether they be personal, economic or spiritual, than the average secular Joe. Splitting hairs about their personal approach is pointless. Good guys must come first, only then will everything, and everybody, come back into alignment.

  17. Pingback: What a Typical Christian Wife Looks Like | The Reinvention of Man

  18. LH says:

    You are painting MRA’s with a broad, prejudiced brush. MRAs don’t monolithically deny men’s responsibility and blame everything on women. There are plenty of legitimate points MRAs point out.

    The manosphere is not all ‘MRAs.’ For some reason, Dalrock’s blog also attracts posters who are into gaming women. That’s an aspect of the manosphere, but it’s not really an MRA thing. So you get crass comments from men hardened against women. Apparently, Dalrock reads posts from some of these PUA sites as well.

    I agree that Dalrock overstates his case, especially when he’s talking about someone like Mark Driscoll. Men aren’t universally righteous and good in their relationships with women. There are men who are abusive, fornicators, etc. I’d agree with MRAs that it’s not good to live in a society where men are viewed with undue suspicion of being abusive or molesters. In the hospital, when a baby is born, someone came in with a form asking my wife if I was abusing her. That’s rather insulting. What does that have to do with childbirth? Why should I be held in suspicion for being a man and a father.

    And Dalrock has some really good, even if sarcastic, points to make about the ease of divorce and remarriage, and the prejudice against men in the court’s system.

  19. Casey says:

    I’ve been following Dalrock’s blog for 18 months now. It is a much needed breath of fresh air.

    I can’t even begin to tell you how refreshing it is to find a group of people who see the same societal problems that I see.

    Read Helen Smith’s book ‘Men on Strike!’ and you will get some much needed insight into the state of the modern male psyche.

    If women boast they don’t need men (feminists in particular proclaim it quite loudly) then you can expect a change in men’s behaviour towards women.

    As Dalrock has noted, the carrot approach to relationships gave men something to reach for, the stick approach gives men something to avoid. The stick approach is used frequently, and firmly by the current feminist culture.

    Men and women are both flawed, I don’t believe Dalrock has ever suggested otherwise. Where everything comes off the rails is when every level of society is lionizing feminism while simultaneously tearing men down.

    An honest discussion on these issues can’t even take place, as women monopolize dialogue. Speak out against feminism, and you will be quickly beaten down as (insert man-shaming pro-noun here).

    You will get no traction attempting to bury Dalrock’s observations with your standard solipsism.

    • Highwasp says:

      excellent comment Casey – I agree 100%. I have been following Dalrock for about the same amount of time and while I don’t hold with Christianity so much I do value his articles and especially the comments section that follows. I read every one and the mentoring I have received there and elsewhere in the Manosphere is valuable beyond description.

  20. Pingback: Dalrock Hurting Women | Secular Patriarchy

  21. Dave says:

    So you have no problem with this statement in a prayer?

    Lord God, as well, I pray for those men who are here that are cowards. They are silent passive impish worthless men….

    Well, God does. There is only one known individual who accuses men before God, and that is not someone you want to imitate. The only time it is acceptable to call God’s creation “worthless” is if the person saying so identifies as one of these “worthless creatures”—-in humility. At all other times it shows unalloyed arrogance.
    So these men are “worthless”, but Driscoll is of course worthy to say so?

  22. Pingback: My New Appreciation for Dalrock | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s