Based on who I assume the audience is for this newlestter, the following comment likely won't make an impact, but here we go anyway.
Relationships between men and women are not commodities that can be quantified and discected like a market index. This thinking reduces people to transactions and dehuminzes them.
"Women" are not a monolithic singular culture apart from "men". There is no such thing as a "sexual imbalance of society". If you feel as though you are being denied emotional and physical intimacy because of some inaccurate labels, then you are thinking about it wrong.
If you want a relationship as a transactional exchange for sex, there are services for that. If you want an actual partner then you need to look in the mirror and determine what is attractive about you. Do you like you? if not, then you can't expect others too. And if you don't, it is painful but ultimately rewarding to understand what you don't like, why you don't like it, and commit to change.
We are all deserving of love and connection. But we have to be open and available to it, and see others as individuals and not some kind of unit of production.
I see a lot, the majority, of Delta dads pedestalize their daughters. Titles such as Little Princess, Daddy's Little Girl, all that translates into the foundation that become the stepping stones on how she views men. Ultimitely, those households are run equally by the wives, & the daughters.
Fathers, you must be aware of the nature that is in your daughters that is constantly trying to power check your authority. How you allow her to treat you is how she'll grow to perceive she can treat other men. Don't let your daughters steamroll you.
The sad thing is, we were all warned. I haven't read all the holy books of all the religions or the world's collections of wisdom, but I'm pretty sure most of them have somewhere in them warnings against sloth, lust, greed, pride, adultery, jealousy, covetousness, etc., etc.
"But we didn't know!! Nobody told us!!"
Yes, I did, yes they did and I wasn't paying attention.
Julie C referred to the remnant and that reminded me of Gary North who called his e-magazine "The Remnant" and from time to time would remind readers of where (and why) he gave it that name: from the story of Elijah. I'm not a Bible scholar and don't recall the details, but what made an impression was the idea that Elijah had to keep spreading the word to the Remnant, even though he had no idea who they were and had no way to identify or locate them. And not lose heart!
and it occurs to me that the age-old wisdom, embodied in Christian principles and traditional practices, acts as both a preventative (to prevent society going off the rails) and a corrective (once society HAS gone off the rails). In other words, they are eternal truths: they remain true and valid wherever a society is on its cyclical trajectory, or wherever an individual may be on his or her personal journey.
The hand-wringing and flailing about for solutions, however eloquent and educated the writers may be, are just wasting time: the answers are where they have always been. We don't need the wheel to be re-invented, tho we may need old wine put into new bottles before we pay attention.
The majority of women require positive reinforcement to improve. How do we positive-reinforcement our way out of this problem, when the damage is already done, and most women usually dismiss the older women who found out the hard way that this is not the path? We know of the quasi-permanent effects of microchimerisms, and what damage they do for years to come. We understand how hollywood indoctrinates women from when they are little girls. Is our only option to tear down civilization, and rebuild it from the ground up?
While medieval Christendom was largely monogamistic, and pretty functional, the concept of "Biblical marriage" which also includes the polygyny of men like Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David, and Josiah solves these issues better than anything else.
Exodus 22:16–17 taught that the man who seduced a virgin had to marry her. Even if he was already married, he also had to marry her.
The woman who deceived her husband into marrying her saying she was a virgin when she wasn't was put to death (Deuteronomy 22).
Adulterers (men who lay with other men's wives) and adulteresses (wives who lay with other men than their husband) were put to death.
These laws came from the Creator (Jesus), and He knows best
Some highly desirable guy like King David had multiple wives. Some Omegas, and Gammas probably didn't get a wife. The Deltas generally still got wives.
If the women had the Alpha thirst, then they had to share their Alpha with a few other wives, but at least they weren't thrown away like trash. They and their children were protected and provided for.
Other women would realize that the Bravo or Delta would be less exciting, but would likely never take more than one wife, and would snap them up.
The Alphas got to have multiple women (way less than now), but had to accept full responsibility to provide for all of them, and all their children.
The Delta at least got to marry a decent virgin, not some worn out, and used up Alpha widow who would spend her life despising him.
Is in the example of Adam and Eve as created, not the pragmatic failures documented throughout Biblical history.
Solomon was left off the list, as one of the most prolific polygamists. Why leave off the wisest Israel king from her Golden Age?
Because his many wives made him foolish and lost him his kingdom? That's where one must distinguish between "described in the Bible" and "good because this is the original design".
There is way more to Biblical marriage than the example of Adam and Eve.
The Bible clearly also treats polygyny as legitimate. The Law and the Prophets are clear. The teaching of Christ and His Apostles is also consistent with this understanding.
I can give you the Gamma wall of Biblical texts supporting this understanding but don't want to annoy everyone.
The egalitarian view of marriage is profoundly wrong.
Marriage reflects the relationship between God and His people, between Christ and the redeemed.
The example of the Second Adam is more important than the first.
Marriage is a Covenant, a relationship between a head or leader and a follower or helper. It is not a mere partnership between two equals.
Christ and the redeemed is clearly a One to many relationship.
In 1st Cor. 11, Christ is the Head of every man, like the man is the head of the wife.
In Romans 7 we see that each individual Christian has died to the Law, died to himself, and been united (married to in KJV) the Risen Lord Jesus Christ.
In the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, the Bridegroom (representing Christ Himself) claims all five of the wise ones. These are clearly brides.
Christ is far more "polygamous" than Solomon. He is not satisfied with only 1000. He claims all the redeemed as His own.
I know this is a hard truth to deal with. It is contrary to our cultural programming. I am challenging a sacred cow.
Polygyny is not contrary to God's character. He has multiple wives. Read Ezekiel and Jeremiah,.where He describes Himself being married to two women at the same time, sisters Oholah and Oholibah or Judah and Samaria
Paul probably has divorce (very common in Greco- Roman culture) in mind rather than polygyny (which was generally contrary to Roman law).
Whatever the case, Scripture interpreta Scripture,.and God's Law is really clear on this issue.
1. The 7th Commandment (adultery) has nothing to do with men having multiple wives, but instead deals with men having relations with the wives of other men.and women being unfaithful to their husband.
2. God (Including Jesus Christ) uses the language of polygamy when describing His relationship with us, His people.
3. There is no direct general prohibition against polygyny anywhere in Scripture (including Paul's qualifications for elders in Timothy and Titus).
4. Polygyny is regulated under the Law. Regulation indicates that the thing itself is not unlawful.
5.God clearly approves of polygamy in a number of places.
He approves of Abimelech's polygamy but not his adultery in Genesis 20 saying that he acted in integrity of heart.
He blessed polygamous Jacob using the exact same language that He used when blessing monogamous Adam, "be fruitful and multiply".
He approved of David's polygamy but not his adultery in 2nd Samuel 12 and then again in 1st Kings 15:5.
He approved of Joash having two wives in 2 Chronicles 24:2-3.
There are mountains of Biblical evidence.
It is lawful for a man to be single. It is lawful for a man to have one wife. It is lawful for a man to have multiple wives.
That said, I agree that generally speaking monogamy is and generally should be the default position for most men. Yess, I have one wife. The fact that something is lawful doesn't necessarily mean that very many people can handle it, or should do it.
By the way, the Greek word Paul used for "one wife" in Timothy and Titus can also reasonably be rendered in a couple different way.
It might be understood as "a wife" meaning that the elder is married, not single.
It might be "first wife" meaning that the elder is a faithful man who keeps his covenant with the wife of his youth.
It might be "one wife" meaning that the elder is not polygamous. Even then, this could be a practical qualification like "able to teach" and not a moral one. A monogamous man would generally have more time to devote to the care of God's family than a polygamous man with more wives and children.
No matter the case, universal basic foundational moral law such as "what is marriage" is not overturned by this instruction.
Solomon sinned in his polygamy. He violated Deuteronomy 17. He took excessive wives (1000), acquired excessive gold and silver, and acquired excessive horses, even getting them from Egypt.
Deuteronomy 17 prohibited each of those things, and Solomon did all of them and turned from the Lord just like Deuteronomy 17 said would happen.
David on the other hand also had a lot of wives (~17), a lot of horses, and a lot of gold and silver. Yet, he did not violate Deuteronomy 17 according to the assessment of his life given in 1st Kings 15.
Though Solomon sinned in his polygamy, even his failure seems to point to the Greater Son of David and King of Peace who would come.
Solomon took 1000 women, from a variety of nations, many of whom worshipped idols, and they turned his heart away from the Lord.
Jesus Christ is taking billions of men, women, and children, from every tongue tribe and nation, who all serve idols, and He turns their hearts to the Lord! Glory to God in the highest!
"There is a cost to sexual “freedom.” And it is almost always paid by the woman."
More woman solipsism in the post. You pay with your soul, and divorced fathers pay with their wallets, and also their souls.
"Women are the ones whose hearts are most deeply tied to intimacy."
She's never even given a delta a second glance.
"Women are the ones who were meant to be pursued, honored, cherished."
They don't cherish you, lads, and they never will. The very thought of it never even crosses their minds, and these 2nd and 3rd quotes here, which immediately follow one after the other, should tell you just how compartmentalized and illogical women are, even when they realize, too late, how much they've screwed up their entire lives. Women are both extremely soul-tied to sexual intimacy, but also not supposed to cherish their men.
1. There will be an economic collapse when debt reaches a certain point and the interest payments are a large proportion of expenditure from the government on down. That level is a fraction of GDP, not a multiple of it.
2. AI is going to kill makework. The typists are gone already. A fair amount of B2B admin will be automated. Routine professional advice will also be automated. This will mean most women lose their jobs.
3. The employment that will last will be one of:
a. Dirty, dangerous and distant eg. mining, sewage.
b. Need skilled on site application. Plumbing, drainlaying. farming (yes, farming is very skilled).
c. Exercises professional judgement. Not routine, but difficult. Dr House if you will, not the medical administrators.
Women generally do not work in 3a,b or c. They will be forced to retreat to the family and reclaim their old role. They will then consider it high status to he a SAHM and have a man provide for her. I used to live in a University Town, and the PhD chicks were chasing builders for this reason.
So my money is on collapse: my advice is for men to have a skilled job one cannot automate. My advice to all is do not trust the state. The theft of your pensions and benefits is going to happen.
Nowhere is feminism's wreckage more on display than the various YouTube channels that comment on these women's TikTok videos, many if not most are alpha widows.
As an older man, a couple things strike me about these women; They are fundamentally amoral and clearly unable to pair-bond. Some flat out say it (man-fish-bicycle), others say it by rattling off all the checkboxes a man needs to date them. They then wonder why none approach.
It's because we can see this.
The line that drives them berserk is 'men want debt free virgins without tattoos'. And without TikTok channels, I'd add.
Chaperones and matchmaking seem sensible in retrospect.
White men have a pathological need to make women happy. But what makes women happy in the short run will make them miserable in the long run.
Based on who I assume the audience is for this newlestter, the following comment likely won't make an impact, but here we go anyway.
Relationships between men and women are not commodities that can be quantified and discected like a market index. This thinking reduces people to transactions and dehuminzes them.
"Women" are not a monolithic singular culture apart from "men". There is no such thing as a "sexual imbalance of society". If you feel as though you are being denied emotional and physical intimacy because of some inaccurate labels, then you are thinking about it wrong.
If you want a relationship as a transactional exchange for sex, there are services for that. If you want an actual partner then you need to look in the mirror and determine what is attractive about you. Do you like you? if not, then you can't expect others too. And if you don't, it is painful but ultimately rewarding to understand what you don't like, why you don't like it, and commit to change.
We are all deserving of love and connection. But we have to be open and available to it, and see others as individuals and not some kind of unit of production.
Consider the perspective of a man raised by feminist women who were "borderline," or sicker than neurotics but not quite psychotic
https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/present-at-the-creation-of-feminism
Alpha Widows
I see a lot, the majority, of Delta dads pedestalize their daughters. Titles such as Little Princess, Daddy's Little Girl, all that translates into the foundation that become the stepping stones on how she views men. Ultimitely, those households are run equally by the wives, & the daughters.
Fathers, you must be aware of the nature that is in your daughters that is constantly trying to power check your authority. How you allow her to treat you is how she'll grow to perceive she can treat other men. Don't let your daughters steamroll you.
The sad thing is, we were all warned. I haven't read all the holy books of all the religions or the world's collections of wisdom, but I'm pretty sure most of them have somewhere in them warnings against sloth, lust, greed, pride, adultery, jealousy, covetousness, etc., etc.
"But we didn't know!! Nobody told us!!"
Yes, I did, yes they did and I wasn't paying attention.
Julie C referred to the remnant and that reminded me of Gary North who called his e-magazine "The Remnant" and from time to time would remind readers of where (and why) he gave it that name: from the story of Elijah. I'm not a Bible scholar and don't recall the details, but what made an impression was the idea that Elijah had to keep spreading the word to the Remnant, even though he had no idea who they were and had no way to identify or locate them. And not lose heart!
https://fee.org/articles/jeremiahs-job/
There's a lot of hand-wringing and "whatever-shall-we-do?" about this topic on Substack alone (just came across this one today https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/writer-update )
and it occurs to me that the age-old wisdom, embodied in Christian principles and traditional practices, acts as both a preventative (to prevent society going off the rails) and a corrective (once society HAS gone off the rails). In other words, they are eternal truths: they remain true and valid wherever a society is on its cyclical trajectory, or wherever an individual may be on his or her personal journey.
The hand-wringing and flailing about for solutions, however eloquent and educated the writers may be, are just wasting time: the answers are where they have always been. We don't need the wheel to be re-invented, tho we may need old wine put into new bottles before we pay attention.
The majority of women require positive reinforcement to improve. How do we positive-reinforcement our way out of this problem, when the damage is already done, and most women usually dismiss the older women who found out the hard way that this is not the path? We know of the quasi-permanent effects of microchimerisms, and what damage they do for years to come. We understand how hollywood indoctrinates women from when they are little girls. Is our only option to tear down civilization, and rebuild it from the ground up?
No, but barring a virtuous popular dictator, that's the most probable path.
While medieval Christendom was largely monogamistic, and pretty functional, the concept of "Biblical marriage" which also includes the polygyny of men like Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David, and Josiah solves these issues better than anything else.
Exodus 22:16–17 taught that the man who seduced a virgin had to marry her. Even if he was already married, he also had to marry her.
The woman who deceived her husband into marrying her saying she was a virgin when she wasn't was put to death (Deuteronomy 22).
Adulterers (men who lay with other men's wives) and adulteresses (wives who lay with other men than their husband) were put to death.
These laws came from the Creator (Jesus), and He knows best
Some highly desirable guy like King David had multiple wives. Some Omegas, and Gammas probably didn't get a wife. The Deltas generally still got wives.
If the women had the Alpha thirst, then they had to share their Alpha with a few other wives, but at least they weren't thrown away like trash. They and their children were protected and provided for.
Other women would realize that the Bravo or Delta would be less exciting, but would likely never take more than one wife, and would snap them up.
The Alphas got to have multiple women (way less than now), but had to accept full responsibility to provide for all of them, and all their children.
The Delta at least got to marry a decent virgin, not some worn out, and used up Alpha widow who would spend her life despising him.
"the concept of "Biblical marriage""
Is in the example of Adam and Eve as created, not the pragmatic failures documented throughout Biblical history.
Solomon was left off the list, as one of the most prolific polygamists. Why leave off the wisest Israel king from her Golden Age?
Because his many wives made him foolish and lost him his kingdom? That's where one must distinguish between "described in the Bible" and "good because this is the original design".
Let me throw in one more thing. At creation, God blessed monogamous Adam and Eve, bidding them "be fruitful and multiply".
God also blessed the polygamous patriarch Jacob, the same way, "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 35:9-12).
God recognized Jacob's marriages as legitimate.
There is way more to Biblical marriage than the example of Adam and Eve.
The Bible clearly also treats polygyny as legitimate. The Law and the Prophets are clear. The teaching of Christ and His Apostles is also consistent with this understanding.
I can give you the Gamma wall of Biblical texts supporting this understanding but don't want to annoy everyone.
The egalitarian view of marriage is profoundly wrong.
Marriage reflects the relationship between God and His people, between Christ and the redeemed.
The example of the Second Adam is more important than the first.
Marriage is a Covenant, a relationship between a head or leader and a follower or helper. It is not a mere partnership between two equals.
Christ and the redeemed is clearly a One to many relationship.
In 1st Cor. 11, Christ is the Head of every man, like the man is the head of the wife.
In Romans 7 we see that each individual Christian has died to the Law, died to himself, and been united (married to in KJV) the Risen Lord Jesus Christ.
In the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, the Bridegroom (representing Christ Himself) claims all five of the wise ones. These are clearly brides.
Christ is far more "polygamous" than Solomon. He is not satisfied with only 1000. He claims all the redeemed as His own.
"Christ is far more "polygamous" than Solomon. "
And yet polygamists are banned from Church leadership. What's wrong with polygamy when Christ is a so-called polygamist?
Your walls of text prove out the wisdom of the restriction. (3 replies? Seriously?) You subvert truth to your monomania.
Contrast:
The Apostle Paul: "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."
"Too bad, wife #12, husband is booked till next month."
I know this is a hard truth to deal with. It is contrary to our cultural programming. I am challenging a sacred cow.
Polygyny is not contrary to God's character. He has multiple wives. Read Ezekiel and Jeremiah,.where He describes Himself being married to two women at the same time, sisters Oholah and Oholibah or Judah and Samaria
Paul probably has divorce (very common in Greco- Roman culture) in mind rather than polygyny (which was generally contrary to Roman law).
Whatever the case, Scripture interpreta Scripture,.and God's Law is really clear on this issue.
"probably"
There you go dismissing inconvenient Biblical directives in favor of your sacred cow of polygyny.
If you are married to more than one wife, you are categorically banned from Christian leadership.
If you are not married to more than one wife, you're a hypocrite preaching a lifestyle you don't practice.
I see you have no answers for the following.
1. The 7th Commandment (adultery) has nothing to do with men having multiple wives, but instead deals with men having relations with the wives of other men.and women being unfaithful to their husband.
2. God (Including Jesus Christ) uses the language of polygamy when describing His relationship with us, His people.
3. There is no direct general prohibition against polygyny anywhere in Scripture (including Paul's qualifications for elders in Timothy and Titus).
4. Polygyny is regulated under the Law. Regulation indicates that the thing itself is not unlawful.
5.God clearly approves of polygamy in a number of places.
He approves of Abimelech's polygamy but not his adultery in Genesis 20 saying that he acted in integrity of heart.
He blessed polygamous Jacob using the exact same language that He used when blessing monogamous Adam, "be fruitful and multiply".
He approved of David's polygamy but not his adultery in 2nd Samuel 12 and then again in 1st Kings 15:5.
He approved of Joash having two wives in 2 Chronicles 24:2-3.
There are mountains of Biblical evidence.
It is lawful for a man to be single. It is lawful for a man to have one wife. It is lawful for a man to have multiple wives.
That said, I agree that generally speaking monogamy is and generally should be the default position for most men. Yess, I have one wife. The fact that something is lawful doesn't necessarily mean that very many people can handle it, or should do it.
By the way, the Greek word Paul used for "one wife" in Timothy and Titus can also reasonably be rendered in a couple different way.
It might be understood as "a wife" meaning that the elder is married, not single.
It might be "first wife" meaning that the elder is a faithful man who keeps his covenant with the wife of his youth.
It might be "one wife" meaning that the elder is not polygamous. Even then, this could be a practical qualification like "able to teach" and not a moral one. A monogamous man would generally have more time to devote to the care of God's family than a polygamous man with more wives and children.
No matter the case, universal basic foundational moral law such as "what is marriage" is not overturned by this instruction.
Solomon sinned in his polygamy. He violated Deuteronomy 17. He took excessive wives (1000), acquired excessive gold and silver, and acquired excessive horses, even getting them from Egypt.
Deuteronomy 17 prohibited each of those things, and Solomon did all of them and turned from the Lord just like Deuteronomy 17 said would happen.
David on the other hand also had a lot of wives (~17), a lot of horses, and a lot of gold and silver. Yet, he did not violate Deuteronomy 17 according to the assessment of his life given in 1st Kings 15.
Though Solomon sinned in his polygamy, even his failure seems to point to the Greater Son of David and King of Peace who would come.
Solomon took 1000 women, from a variety of nations, many of whom worshipped idols, and they turned his heart away from the Lord.
Jesus Christ is taking billions of men, women, and children, from every tongue tribe and nation, who all serve idols, and He turns their hearts to the Lord! Glory to God in the highest!
Well said.
"There is a cost to sexual “freedom.” And it is almost always paid by the woman."
More woman solipsism in the post. You pay with your soul, and divorced fathers pay with their wallets, and also their souls.
"Women are the ones whose hearts are most deeply tied to intimacy."
She's never even given a delta a second glance.
"Women are the ones who were meant to be pursued, honored, cherished."
They don't cherish you, lads, and they never will. The very thought of it never even crosses their minds, and these 2nd and 3rd quotes here, which immediately follow one after the other, should tell you just how compartmentalized and illogical women are, even when they realize, too late, how much they've screwed up their entire lives. Women are both extremely soul-tied to sexual intimacy, but also not supposed to cherish their men.
I have a hypothesis.
1. There will be an economic collapse when debt reaches a certain point and the interest payments are a large proportion of expenditure from the government on down. That level is a fraction of GDP, not a multiple of it.
2. AI is going to kill makework. The typists are gone already. A fair amount of B2B admin will be automated. Routine professional advice will also be automated. This will mean most women lose their jobs.
3. The employment that will last will be one of:
a. Dirty, dangerous and distant eg. mining, sewage.
b. Need skilled on site application. Plumbing, drainlaying. farming (yes, farming is very skilled).
c. Exercises professional judgement. Not routine, but difficult. Dr House if you will, not the medical administrators.
Women generally do not work in 3a,b or c. They will be forced to retreat to the family and reclaim their old role. They will then consider it high status to he a SAHM and have a man provide for her. I used to live in a University Town, and the PhD chicks were chasing builders for this reason.
So my money is on collapse: my advice is for men to have a skilled job one cannot automate. My advice to all is do not trust the state. The theft of your pensions and benefits is going to happen.
Nowhere is feminism's wreckage more on display than the various YouTube channels that comment on these women's TikTok videos, many if not most are alpha widows.
As an older man, a couple things strike me about these women; They are fundamentally amoral and clearly unable to pair-bond. Some flat out say it (man-fish-bicycle), others say it by rattling off all the checkboxes a man needs to date them. They then wonder why none approach.
It's because we can see this.
The line that drives them berserk is 'men want debt free virgins without tattoos'. And without TikTok channels, I'd add.
Can you (or someone) please name some of these YouTube channels that comment on these women's TikTok videos? I would like to watch some.
I'd add BetterBachelor and Alexander Grace
Manosphere, Griffin Mind, SimpSaverSam, Alpha Central. There's even a few women: Dadvocate, The_Lady_J, and Emily King.
... and without facial piercings. Ugh!
Bring on Christian Nationalism and wars. Time to help foreigners and evil remember who are correct down here. War helps create strong men too.
Growing up in Sweden and see a society push feminism and egalitarismen to absolut max, seeing the result and the complete failure is incredible
The solution, as always:
Pater Familias.
Whatever comes next after collapse or conquest, said civilization will have Pater Familias.
1 Corinthians is clear that a woman is to under either her father or her husband’s roof and rule.
This was our societal norm up until the middle of the 20th century.
Good luck finding a church that will teach this today.
I really miss Dalrock’s blog detailing all of this.
A lot of us miss Dalrock
His old posts are archived, if you need to show them to anyone.
https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock