How do you, the women of this forum get over the "unfairness" of patriarchy, especially polygyny?

[Keith Martin]

You're welcome Sir.
Its difficult writing here at times because, I know somethings I say may ruffle feathers, however if we truly want progress ( at least for the future generation of young adults that may come to this forum) its more just, to discuss all possibilities, triumphs and pitfalls, they may encounter throughout their mating development.

Human life, as compared to other living things like trees for instance, is short. The more we learn , hopefully the less mistakes we should be making.

Young adults can dodge these mistakes per se , by learning here (this forum tool) from others' blunders, thereby avoiding wasting precious LIFE.

My motivation and objective is that, my six grandsons, one day, will grow up and know where I stood on the subject of plural biblical marriage.
Perhaps they will also glean, from all the stories shared here by others, and the different stances men took on scriptural doctrine. My deep love for them and my compassion for women , compel me to risk saying, what is often at times difficult or a bit taboo. The bottom line, is that satan/the demonic/lucifer is working overtime with legions of entities , to destroy humans, as we are so loved by our HEAVENLY CREATOR. Where we had failed in being vigilant, hopefully our children and grand children will not, because we did not let the ego, hide pertinent truths from them. We exposed the wiles of the devil's impact on our own frail lives.

Beautiful, Bina!

 

[Bina]

Beautiful, Bina!

Thank you Sir

 

[NBTX11]

My motivation and objective is that, my six grandsons, one day, will grow up and know where I stood on the subject of plural biblical marriage.
Perhaps they will also glean, from all the stories shared here by others, and the different stances men took on scriptural doctrine. My deep love for them and my compassion for women , compel me to risk saying, what is often at times difficult or a bit taboo. The bottom line, is that satan/the demonic/lucifer is working overtime with legions of entities , to destroy humans, as we are so loved by our HEAVENLY CREATOR. Where we had failed in being vigilant, hopefully our children and grand children will not, because we did not let the ego, hide pertinent truths from them. We exposed the wiles of the devil's impact on our own frail lives.

That's it. We must be willing to take a stand for truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is. Notice I said be willing. There's a time and a place for everything. But those closest to us, our children, and grandchildren should know exactly where we stand, how we stand, and why we stand. I am getting more and more encouraged to tell those around me exactly what God's Word says, come what may.

We don't need to hide the word in the sand.

 

[Keith Martin]

We don't need to hide the word in the sand.

And we don't have to limit spreading The Word only to already-fertile soil. We especially don't have to restrict truth-sharing to fellow believers.

Every one of us is capable at one level or another of putting Scripture into other words that will remain true to Him Who Spoke It while effectively speaking into the listening of those who wouldn't hear them if they're only couched in religious terms.

 

[anioko1]

I keep running into this trope with patriarchal men who think that authority is something that is given to them. It is not.

Taking women out of the discussion for the moment let's look at authority of men over other men and how that works.

In the military a man might be commissioned as an officer and by a consequence of being an officer he has command over other men. That's nice but it still isn't authority. Authority is the outcome of credibility.

Credible officers have authority over their men. Officers who lack credibility will not have authority and instead will have to deal with varying degrees of mutiny, some overt and some subtle. In any case they most certainly do not have authority over their men.

Apply this principle to a family.

A man who provides for his first wife, takes good care of their children, his house is in order, his income is sufficient for the family he has and more.

That man's first wife will know he's a good man who cares about her and her kids and she'll know that there will be no horrible downside to taking in a plural. Because her husband is credible and she willingly submits to his authority.

The next man can't keep a job or the job he has barely keeps the family financially solvent. There are a lot of bills to pay. There are debts to pay. He's not involved with the children. He neglects his obligations around the house, he neglects his first wife. This man has no credibility and his wife does not willingly submit to or even tolerate his claimed authority. He tells his first wife he wants to take on a plural and his first wife questions his motives, she questions his ability to support another wife, and she refuses to simply go along with what is measurably a bad idea.

Too many of you guys just don't get it when it comes to God putting a mantle of authority on you. Authority from God is not a gift, it is a responsibility.

God demands that men of authority be better men than other men.

In the modern world a man who wants to take more than one wife must be an extraordinary man and not just your average man who works from paycheck to paycheck and is saddled with student loans, car loans, a mortgage, credit card debts, and etc.

The Parable of the Talents very much applies here. If you can make much of what God gives you then you will be trusted with more. If you can't handle what you have then why should you be trusted with more?

Good men have no problem with God's requirements of them. We have plenty of examples of good men on this forum and I recommend that any man who wants to add to his family first consult with these good men.

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17

Seek out these Men of Iron and learn from them. Join them and become a Man of Iron and you'll no longer wonder about authority because it will simply become the natural outcome of your credibility.

I will close with this: Every man I have ever known who complains about how no one recognizes his authority has none.

Men of Iron who hold authority never complain about it because the people around them see it and readily accept it. It is simply a fact and not anything up for discussion or debate.

Very good viewpoints. Does the woman have a role? I read somewhere about a virtuous woman who trades and does stuff. Because if I read your points it feels the woman has no responsibility to help out at all. The responsibility for everything is on the man. But from Genesis, God said I will give him a help mate. If Eve was man's helpmate, then Eve's help is not only in childbirth and companionship. This would make sense because if we look at the role of a man only and don't consider the role of a woman as specified in Proverbs 31:10-31 then I assume there is no difference between people of the world. In fact, it will lead to problems if the woman cannot see Proverbs 31:10-31 and see that she has a role. I assume that once she sees Proverbs 31:10-31, she will stop expecting the man to be a demi-god who provides everything. She will be respectful and see him as the head with authority from God. This is what I think will solve problems. The scriptures cannot and shouldn't be broken. It should connect itself from the beginning to the end.

 

[MeganC]

Very good viewpoints. Does the woman have a role? I read somewhere about a virtuous woman who trades and does stuff. Because if I read your points it feels the woman has no responsibility to help out at all. The responsibility for everything is on the man. But from Genesis, God said I will give him a help mate. If Eve was man's helpmate, then Eve's help is not only in childbirth and companionship. This would make sense because if we look at the role of a man only and don't consider the role of a woman as specified in Proverbs 31:10-31 then I assume there is no difference between people of the world. In fact, it will lead to problems if the woman cannot see Proverbs 31:10-31 and see that she has a role. I assume that once she sees Proverbs 31:10-31, she will stop expecting the man to be a demi-god who provides everything. She will be respectful and see him as the head with authority from God. This is what I think will solve problems. The scriptures cannot and shouldn't be broken. It should connect itself from the beginning to the end.

Of course a woman has a role.

If you have a good man who is making sound decisions based on Godly wisdom and you don't support him then that's all on you. You have to own it if things don't work out for you.

But the thing is a Godly and credible man is also going to choose wisely for his wife/wives and be able to discern which women will fit into his house.

Still, rebellion happens and if a woman chooses this course even though she has a good man then again she has to own it.

But let's say a woman fell in love and married herself a man who makes poor choices. Does she have to obey him in those poor choices?

Some would say yes but what if the man becomes a drug dealer? Should she support him in his drug dealing? Should she be obedient if her husband becomes an armed robber by profession? Is she disobedient if she calls the police and says, "My husband is a criminal, come get him."?

Is it disobedient for a Godly woman to leave her man if he chooses to be a criminal and put her and her children at risk?

Of course not.

But again, good men do not have this problem.

 

[NBTX11]

Of course a woman has a role.

If you have a good man who is making sound decisions based on Godly wisdom and you don't support him then that's all on you. You have to own it if things don't work out for you.

But the thing is a Godly and credible man is also going to choose wisely for his wife/wives and be able to discern which women will fit into his house.

Still, rebellion happens and if a woman chooses this course even though she has a good man then again she has to own it.

But let's say a woman fell in love and married herself a man who makes poor choices. Does she have to obey him in those poor choices?

Some would say yes but what if the man becomes a drug dealer? Should she support him in his drug dealing? Should she be obedient if her husband becomes an armed robber by profession? Is she disobedient if she calls the police and says, "My husband is a criminal, come get him."?

Is it disobedient for a Godly woman to leave her man if he chooses to be a criminal and put her and her children at risk?

Of course not.

But again, good men do not have this problem.

Robbing is sin, so in my opinion she does not need to sin and obey husband.

However if he directs her to do something that is not sin, even if she disagrees with it, she must obey. She can certainly talk to him first and tell him what her concerns with it are and those reasons might be compelling to him.

 

[Keith Martin]

Very good viewpoints. Does the woman have a role? I read somewhere about a virtuous woman who trades and does stuff. Because if I read your points it feels the woman has no responsibility to help out at all. The responsibility for everything is on the man. But from Genesis, God said I will give him a help mate. If Eve was man's helpmate, then Eve's help is not only in childbirth and companionship. This would make sense because if we look at the role of a man only and don't consider the role of a woman as specified in Proverbs 31:10-31 then I assume there is no difference between people of the world. In fact, it will lead to problems if the woman cannot see Proverbs 31:10-31 and see that she has a role. I assume that once she sees Proverbs 31:10-31, she will stop expecting the man to be a demi-god who provides everything. She will be respectful and see him as the head with authority from God. This is what I think will solve problems. The scriptures cannot and shouldn't be broken. It should connect itself from the beginning to the end.

Of course a woman has a scriptural and pragmatic role beyond childbirth and companionship; her role is to be a helper to her man in implementing his vision. That's why it's incumbent upon her to choose wisely which man she pursues.

But let's say a woman fell in love and married herself a man who makes poor choices. Does she have to obey him in those poor choices?

Why does this remind me of the insistence on the part of abortion supporters to perseverate on bringing up rape and incest?

Because the frequency with which it is brought up is used by the majority of women (and the weak men who back them up for doing so) to excuse being disrespectful and disobedient even though no more men lead their wives into criminal behavior than the percentage of abortions performed due to rape or incest.

Why not just stipulate that, yeah, in the case of extreme circumstances like (a) criminality, or (b) the less than 30% of the time that domestic violence isn't initiated by the women, it may truly be justified for a woman to not only refuse to submit but back that up with exiting the marriage altogether without placing primary emphasis on achieving a payday.

However, given that only a very small percentage of marriages could be characterized as meeting one of those criteria -- and an even smaller percentage that not only met those criteria but failed to meet them before the woman "fell in love," repeatedly had sex with the guy, married him, and started having children -- can't we then also stipulate that, in the vast majority of cases, women don't have a leg to stand on to justify their rebellion, and men don't have a leg to stand on to reward them for that rebellion?

There's something irrational about simultaneously (a) claiming that women are capable of having an equal role in designing, organizing and maintaining the world at large, and (b) claiming that women shouldn't be expected to take 100% responsibility for the choices they make about whom they mate with. Why do women, if they're capable of full earthly competency, get an escape clause when it comes to having advance judgment about who they uncover their nakedness with?

 

[Joleneakamama]

Why does this remind me of the insistence on the part of abortion supporters to perseverate on bringing up rape and incest?

Excellent comparison.

There's something irrational about simultaneously (a) claiming that women are capable of having an equal role in designing, organizing and maintaining the world at large, and (b) claiming that women shouldn't be expected to take 100% responsibility for the choices they make about whom they mate with.

This is why we talked about serious issues in the early stage of getting to know each other. It is also why I couldn't understand the objections of some men to the questions in Jenny's list of questions.

I still maintain that no man in his right mind would sign a life long employment contract, giving his employer control over his children and health care choices without knowing just those kind of things the questions are about. Let's keep in mind too that many Christians would not even consider a woman available who was divorced, and most will not consider her if she left the relationship, and rightfully so. But then why think badly of the woman who is serious about investigating the man before marriage?

 

[MemeFan]

There's something irrational about simultaneously (a) claiming that women are capable of having an equal role in designing, organizing and maintaining the world at large, and (b) claiming that women shouldn't be expected to take 100% responsibility for the choices they make about whom they mate with. Why do women, if they're capable of full earthly competency, get an escape clause when it comes to having advance judgment about who they uncover their nakedness with?

There is nothing irrational. It's feminist logic.

When woman wants to do something it's "I'm capable mode". That why she is allowed to made decision.

When woman wants to avoid consequences it's "I'm not capable mode". That why she should suffer anything, but man must bear burden.

Only problem is that if woman aren't capable, then they deserve to be put under care of legal guardian like children or infirm. But, but we can't have that.

Feminist logic = correct thing is me (woman) doing whatever I want with men suffering consequences.

Same as Democrat's logic in USA. Correct conclusion is one which puts more power and money in their hands.

 

[NVIII]

There is nothing irrational. It's feminist logic.

When woman wants to do something it's "I'm capable mode". That why she is allowed to made decision.

When woman wants to avoid consequences it's "I'm not capable mode". That why she should suffer anything, but man must bear burden.

Only problem is that if woman aren't capable, then they deserve to be put under care of legal guardian like children or infirm. But, but we can't have that.

Feminist logic = correct thing is me (woman) doing whatever I want with men suffering consequences.

Same as Democrat's logic in USA. Correct conclusion is one which puts more power and money in their hands.

Hard to argue with this. Fact is, women are poorly suited to make these judgements/choices. Their emotional nature will rule them, as seen. For a predatory male, it's shooting fish (your daughters) in a barrel (dating pool).

 

[theleastofthese]

Very good viewpoints. Does the woman have a role? I read somewhere about a virtuous woman who trades and does stuff. Because if I read your points it feels the woman has no responsibility to help out at all. The responsibility for everything is on the man. But from Genesis, God said I will give him a help mate. If Eve was man's helpmate, then Eve's help is not only in childbirth and companionship. This would make sense because if we look at the role of a man only and don't consider the role of a woman as specified in Proverbs 31:10-31 then I assume there is no difference between people of the world. In fact, it will lead to problems if the woman cannot see Proverbs 31:10-31 and see that she has a role. I assume that once she sees Proverbs 31:10-31, she will stop expecting the man to be a demi-god who provides everything. She will be respectful and see him as the head with authority from God. This is what I think will solve problems. The scriptures cannot and shouldn't be broken. It should connect itself from the beginning to the end.

We have it easy "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord"

 

[Keith Martin]

Feminist logic = correct thing is me (woman) doing whatever I want with men suffering consequences.

Believe me, I know I'm agreeing with you, @MemeFan, but I can't resist using actual logic.

If Feminist Logic = "the correct thing is women doing whatever they want with men suffering the consequences," and

If women doing whatever they want with men suffering the consequences at best = minor positive short-term results but major negative long-term results, then

Feminist Logic = irrationality.

 

[Keith Martin]

For a predatory male, it's shooting fish (your daughters) in a barrel (dating pool).

What fathers these days of daughters who are of-age don't seem to realize is that daughters are far, far more likely to be predatory than are their sons.

ARE WE NOT MULES? . . . WE ARE DEVO!

or 21st Century Schizoid Mannerisms

imnhvn.substack.com

 

[NVIII]

What fathers these days of daughters who are of-age don't seem to realize is that daughters are far, far more likely to be predatory than are their sons.

ARE WE NOT MULES? . . . WE ARE DEVO!

or 21st Century Schizoid Mannerisms

imnhvn.substack.com

I contend that comparison is a chicken and the egg situation. Fathers these days refuse to acknowledge that their daughters were of age long before they became "of age". As such, many daughters have already been run through to "bottom out" proportions (recall recent pair-bonding convo) by the time they reach "of age". It doesn't take many sons to achieve this feat in high school, although many might participate at least once, and this pattern extends into college. I further contend that it is those young men's exploitation of fathers' ignorance, indifference, and negligence that creates broken daughters who become predatory exactly because of learned bahavior and having lost the mechanism of pair-bonding which is a powerful aid to them for becoming and remaining devoted to one man, the establishment of which would be a preventative measure for them becoming predatory. The problem is exacerbated by the previous generation who followed the same path and are now the mothers the daughters pattern themselves after. Meanwhile, the majority of the sons who were not taking advantage of the unbridled pussy in high school, or who slept with one they thought was "the one" before she swung to the next beau, remain unchanged. They are still not exploitative, while many of their female classmates have become so. Finally recognized as "adults" (), we only now take a snapshot and are shocked to find out that women are more predatory than men.

I don't have receipts for this one. It's just my anecdotal opinion.

 

[NVIII's Babe]

Meanwhile, the majority of the sons who were not taking advantage of the unbridled pussy in high school, or who slept with one they thought was "the one" before she swung to the next beau, remain unchanged. They are still not exploitative, while many of their female classmates have become so.

And from my own observation, these sons become the men who repeat, "Happy wife, happy life" and let their women do all the leadership work because they just want to stay married at any cost, thinking a divorce would be the worst possible scenario (especially if they have children).

It's very sad.

 

[MemeFan]

Believe me, I know I'm agreeing with you, @MemeFan, but I can't resist using actual logic.

If Feminist Logic = "the correct thing is women doing whatever they want with men suffering the consequences," and

If women doing whatever they want with men suffering the consequences at best = minor positive short-term results but major negative long-term results, then

Feminist Logic = irrationality.

Point is to justify one's actions and desired, not point to truth.

 

[Bina]

And from my own observation, these sons become the men who repeat, "Happy wife, happy life" and let their women do all the leadership work because they just want to stay married at any cost, thinking a divorce would be the worst possible scenario (especially if they have children).

It's very sad.

Or , especially if they need her income to pay half the bills.

 

[Keith Martin]

I contend that comparison is a chicken and the egg situation. Fathers these days refuse to acknowledge that their daughters were of age long before they became "of age". As such, many daughters have already been run through to "bottom out" proportions (recall recent pair-bonding convo) by the time they reach "of age". It doesn't take many sons to achieve this feat in high school, although many might participate at least once, and this pattern extends into college. I further contend that it is those young men's exploitation of fathers' ignorance, indifference, and negligence that creates broken daughters who become predatory exactly because of learned bahavior and having lost the mechanism of pair-bonding which is a powerful aid to them for becoming and remaining devoted to one man, the establishment of which would be a preventative measure for them becoming predatory. The problem is exacerbated by the previous generation who followed the same path and are now the mothers the daughters pattern themselves after. Meanwhile, the majority of the sons who were not taking advantage of the unbridled pussy in high school, or who slept with one they thought was "the one" before she swung to the next beau, remain unchanged. They are still not exploitative, while many of their female classmates have become so. Finally recognized as "adults" (), we only now take a snapshot and are shocked to find out that women are more predatory than men.

I don't have receipts for this one. It's just my anecdotal opinion.

• Given that you're asserting that your opinion is anecdotal, but you're asserting patterns, you may want to either (a) switch to describing anecdotal examples you've observed or been part of, or (b) consider the possibility that your opinion isn't even anecdotal but guesswork. I see truths for which receipts could be provided, but they're not firmly connected to each other, which makes pattern-determining difficult.
• Nonetheless, you're missing my point: fathers these days are generally, willfully ignorant of what is going on with their daughters (or, worse yet, convinced that they're powerless to influence them), and your analysis not only lets the fathers off the hook (by blaming the sons) and further falls into the snare of letting the daughters off the hook (just another example of permitting females to feign victimhood while demanding agency/power). We've built a world in which individuals (and most certainly females) between the ages of 14 and 25 are given the privileges of adulthood and the responsibilities of toddlers. I don't know how close you've come to direct observation of what goes on at college campuses these days, but when it's just chaos one has to be thankful. I got national recognition for designing behavior management systems for dormitories, but it's not because I'm brilliant; the solutions are all rather non-complex. The problem is a combination of lack of will to do anything about misbehavior on campus and the fact that the students arrive there with the expectation that anything goes.

Bringing it back to the point: ultimately it is men who are responsible for how screwed up everything is, and it will be men who will have the power to correct everything by taking full responsibility for fixing it. The rest is just gas coming out of pie holes. Thus, fathers are far more responsible than are any others in the equation, and it's a cop-out for fathers to blame other men's sons. I contend that the fathers who let their daughters off the hook are the most egregious offenders in this whole dynamic, more so than the sons who f*** those daughters or the fathers of the sons who fail to compel their sons to refrain from jumping on the daughters who make themselves available.

It's a common societal behavior for older men to say, yeah, well, we screwed up, but now it's up to the young men to fix this for us, while we older men sit back and blame the young men for being enticed by female sirens. The only 'fixing' that is likely to occur from that formulation is for the young men to repeat the tsk-tsking proclamations once they're older men. No society has ever been saved by the next generation coming up.

The older men have rewarded their wives for being boss bitches, as well as for initiating most of the domestic violence, most of the adultery, most of the divorces and probably even most of the childhood sexual abuse. The older men pulled punches on blatantly communicating to their daughters that they're acting like whores. The older men failed to either teach their daughters themselves or fully expect their wives to teach their daughters that it is, was and always has been those daughters' responsibility to carefully safeguard their carnal treasures. That, along with marital sex and reproduction, is the responsibility borne by females -- cooking, cleaning and working in the family business are secondary.

I'll be doing my damnedest from here on out to encourage young men to refrain from being led around by the nose by young women dangling pussy in front of them -- to stop doing husband chores for women who aren't prepared to participate in a lifelong commitment. But it's also very clear to me that our efforts are best spent encouraging fathers to either properly train their wives and daughters or be willing to do clean-up work on it after the fact if they failed to do that before their daughters were grown. They will always be your daughters. Yes, in our culture, once they're 18 they can move out and don't have to obey you -- but that doesn't stop them from hearing your voice in their heads. Instead of blaming the boys for tapping them, blame your daughters for so cavalierly opening those gates. We've become too afraid of shaming anyone.

Right now my youngest (19-years-old) daughter is predominantly avoiding me again and has asked me to refrain from talking with her about politics, religion, sexuality, polygyny, patriarchy and intersexual dynamics. She's checked herself into therapy, and she knows exactly what my trained ass thinks about that. I've already gotten beau*coups of advice telling me to do whatever I have to do to get her to feel all wuvved by me again. Of course!: Happy Wife, Happy Life! And Happy Daughter, Happy Life! What no one is holding in the forefront of their minds is that (a) I've said nothing to indicate that I don't love her but instead shower her with praise about how responsibly she's living on her own (well, with her boyfriend) in Austin, because I do indeed consider her to be one of the most resourceful human beings I've ever known; (b) since she moved out last year I've only given her advice when she's asked for it; and (c) until she notified me that she'd started avoiding me because she couldn't think of anything to talk with me about that we would both be interested in, I had no idea she was feeling overwhelmed.

Those who know our history will understand what I mean by this, but I'm not going to take the advice to make our relationship being luvvy-dovey a primary concern. I got the same misguided advice during The Coup back in 2021, and had I taken it, I would to this day still be a Sensitive New Age Guy spouting useless platitudes, my marriage would remain in a shambles with my wife regularly fitting me with new saddle bags, she would still be miserable, my older daughter wouldn't have received appreciated advice based on wisdom acquired through conquering The Coup, and her younger sister could very well be dead by now given things she told me about what she'd been doing before I took charge of the family.

She'll be back, and in the meantime I'm going to do my best to be her father rather than her friend.

She doesn't have to talk with me. Or we can just continue talking about the weather and her cat and dog and boyfriend for the time being. Because I know two things: she will still hear my voice in her head, and -- if I stand firm -- she will eventually want to resume a far-less-vacuous relationship with me. Or she won't. But I won't be doing her any favors by catering to her during this phase of feeling sorry for herself and believing that, if she can just drown out the things she wishes weren't true, everything will be Unicorns and Endless Vacations.

 

[Keith Martin]

And from my own observation, these sons become the men who repeat, "Happy wife, happy life" and let their women do all the leadership work because they just want to stay married at any cost, thinking a divorce would be the worst possible scenario (especially if they have children).

Or , especially if they need her income to pay half the bills.

But it's still cowardice on the part of the man (I can vouch for having done that myself).

What we rarely see these days is women staying married at any cost, no matter whether the man is paying half the bills or all the bills -- and certainly not for the sake of the children. Some do, but they are rapidly becoming the exceptions that prove the rule.

We're even discouraged from considering what that means in relation to the myths about women supposedly being more nurturing, caring, loving and devoted to their children.

[Don't forget: I predominantly blame men for all of this. When a man takes the cowardly way out by allowing the women in his life to dominate him, his behavior affects not only his family but the families of those for whom he's being a role model. Our culture is far more harmed by weak men than it is by the small minority who engage in domestic violence (NCVS figures have consistently indicated that 70% of all physical domestic violence is initiated by women, and over 90% of all emotional violence is initiated by women).]