Feminists

[Man_in_the_Middle]

It is amazing how many feminist like to involve themselves with biblical families! The irony is that many of them do not even realize their leanings...

To me, it like just like the wheat and the tares.... The tares always stand up very proud never realizing that they reveal themselves in so doing....

Cue the white knights!!!

 

[The Revolting Man]

It is amazing how many feminist like to involve themselves with biblical families! The irony is that many of them do not even realize their leanings...

To me, it like just like the wheat and the tares.... The tares always stand up very proud never realizing that they reveal themselves in so doing....

Cue the white knights!!!

Bud you really need to learn the community before you start trying to swing the big stick. Come to a retreat and meet some of us.

We are not white knights. Yes, some of the people involved here have views that are outside the Overton window of accepted patriarchy. That’s okay. They don’t need to be schooled all at once, or even at all. They can have their own ideas.

True patriarchy accepts the limit of a man’s authority. We actually have very little outside of our own homes.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Bud you really need to learn the community before you start trying to swing the big stick. Come to a retreat and meet some of us.

We are not white knights. Yes, some of the people involved here have views that are outside the Overton window of accepted patriarchy. That’s okay. They don’t need to be schooled all at once, or even at all. They can have their own ideas.

True patriarchy accepts the limit of a man’s authority. We actually have very little outside of our own homes.

In what way do I not understand the community? What big stick are you trying to say I swinging? Truth? I am not amazed when a feminist is offended by people within a Patriarchal mindset when they share their beliefs but I am amazed when one living it out steps in to support their position. It seems that women always have a defender regardless of what they are professing. This is literally a forum dedicated to the concept of living out a lifestyle formed in the essence of the Patriarchy. A Forum. For discussing ideas, devoted to this idea. How is it that this is wrong for me to discuss and to call out the feminist as being antithetical to this concept. THEY leap to roll their eyes and make comments in support of feminism. We should not be able to push back? We need to let their ideas germinate without uprooting them?

I have made a number of comments where I was incredibly careful not to offend and still these people take offense. I have had to respond to statements that I did not make but that people wanted to act as if I did make. Some people, like yourself, have stretched my words to make it sound like I think that females/daughters are not as good as sons. Nonsense, I would love to have a daughter. I do value them very much but my point was not about whether they are valuable or not but to their availability over the long arch of time. They should be wholly devoted to their husbands. That means that if he moves a far distance from her family, she should go with him. If he needs help with his elderly, she should prioritize helping him with his elderly. That leaves less room for her elderly. If her parents have sons, then their wives would be able to do the same for them. IF not, then her husband is likely to feel responsible for them and should try to make arrangements to move them close enough to support them as well.

These are not radical ideas and I was presenting them as ideals that we should be aiming for while at the same time addressing the current realities of society. You and others seemed to gloss over the sentences I wrote acknowledging the current day realities.

Anyone that read the whole thread honestly would know that I was talking about societal change that needs to be made towards Patriarchal ideals. Even you came in and claimed that I changed my argument when it was clear that I did not. I continued the point I was making and only someone skim reading would not know the argument was consistent throughout.

Your caustic response to me was so classic of many of the responses I have seen you give and so over the top with aggression that I am wondering why you feel the need to attack people this way. In a thread about a month ago, you were more kind to a man who was full on calling us all out as vipers and telling us how evil we were in huge reposts over and over again than you are to many people here trying to participate in more proper dialogue.
I do not understand your personality. And now you pop in here and tell me that I need to meet you guys in person to get to know you better. Why? Who would want to meet you in person? Many people yes but you are generally not pleasant to anyone that you disagree with. So, the message seems to be that we all need to be very agreeable to you or we will receive a heaping helping of nastiness in return.
This is not true of the other moderators. I have never seen them act the way you do. So, as a bibfam proponent, inviting me to a meeting that you would be attending is really a dis-invite. I have been making plans to meet up at the next meetup and now am reconsidering it altogether.

And to your statement, "True patriarchy accepts the limit of a man’s authority. We actually have very little outside of our own homes.", I would say that our ability to use words to impact the belief systems of everyday men gives us the ability to change laws that then have an impact outside of our homes. Feminist knew this when they began the suffrage movement. This cause our society to change massively and not for the better. We need to fight back with better ideas and put laws in place that reverse the negative impacts that have happened in our society.

Or, we can just wait for the actual collapse to fully happen and then in the destruction of that, order naturally resets. When societies need building, females are happy to support their men in the process. It is only when those societies are stable that the feminist begin to make demands.

 

[OttoM]

Or, we can just wait for the actual collapse to fully happen and then in the destruction of that, order naturally resets. When societies need building, females are happy to support their men in the process. It is only when those societies are stable that the feminist begin to make demands.

That's why we need a righteous King ruling with the torah written in his heart, which prophecy points to it being the Son of YAHUAH (God).

Even though we're living in western civilization - which is "Christian Civilization" - we're very much behind enemy lines. If inside mainstream churches - we're rejected - how much more are we rejected outside? So much more - actually - that if we have two marriage licenses - we're deemed criminals worthy of prison time (in most states, I believe). How about that for despising the Word of the Almighty? Meanwhile, adulteries, homosexuality, hook up culture, and cross dressing reigns supreme with no prison time. I pray for those in darkness to come back to the light.

Luke 11:35
Make sure that the light you think you have is not actually darkness.

Isaiah 8:20
Look to God’s torah and teachings! People who contradict his word are completely in the dark.

For those Christians that simply reject the truth - and teach their own version of righteousness and light - how do they think they can escape judgement? Do they really believe any man has the power to overturn the Word of the Almighty? Did he not say he's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow?

Psalm 22:28 BSB
For dominion belongs to the LORD (YAHUAH) and He rules over the nations.

 

[The Revolting Man]

In what way do I not understand the community? What big stick are you trying to say I swinging? Truth? I am not amazed when a feminist is offended by people within a Patriarchal mindset when they share their beliefs but I am amazed when one living it out steps in to support their position. It seems that women always have a defender regardless of what they are professing. This is literally a forum dedicated to the concept of living out a lifestyle formed in the essence of the Patriarchy. A Forum. For discussing ideas, devoted to this idea. How is it that this is wrong for me to discuss and to call out the feminist as being antithetical to this concept. THEY leap to roll their eyes and make comments in support of feminism. We should not be able to push back? We need to let their ideas germinate without uprooting them?

I have made a number of comments where I was incredibly careful not to offend and still these people take offense. I have had to respond to statements that I did not make but that people wanted to act as if I did make. Some people, like yourself, have stretched my words to make it sound like I think that females/daughters are not as good as sons. Nonsense, I would love to have a daughter. I do value them very much but my point was not about whether they are valuable or not but to their availability over the long arch of time. They should be wholly devoted to their husbands. That means that if he moves a far distance from her family, she should go with him. If he needs help with his elderly, she should prioritize helping him with his elderly. That leaves less room for her elderly. If her parents have sons, then their wives would be able to do the same for them. IF not, then her husband is likely to feel responsible for them and should try to make arrangements to move them close enough to support them as well.

These are not radical ideas and I was presenting them as ideals that we should be aiming for while at the same time addressing the current realities of society. You and others seemed to gloss over the sentences I wrote acknowledging the current day realities.

Anyone that read the whole thread honestly would know that I was talking about societal change that needs to be made towards Patriarchal ideals. Even you came in and claimed that I changed my argument when it was clear that I did not. I continued the point I was making and only someone skim reading would not know the argument was consistent throughout.

Your caustic response to me was so classic of many of the responses I have seen you give and so over the top with aggression that I am wondering why you feel the need to attack people this way. In a thread about a month ago, you were more kind to a man who was full on calling us all out as vipers and telling us how evil we were in huge reposts over and over again than you are to many people here trying to participate in more proper dialogue.
I do not understand your personality. And now you pop in here and tell me that I need to meet you guys in person to get to know you better. Why? Who would want to meet you in person? Many people yes but you are generally not pleasant to anyone that you disagree with. So, the message seems to be that we all need to be very agreeable to you or we will receive a heaping helping of nastiness in return.
This is not true of the other moderators. I have never seen them act the way you do. So, as a bibfam proponent, inviting me to a meeting that you would be attending is really a dis-invite. I have been making plans to meet up at the next meetup and now am reconsidering it altogether.

And to your statement, "True patriarchy accepts the limit of a man’s authority. We actually have very little outside of our own homes.", I would say that our ability to use words to impact the belief systems of everyday men gives us the ability to change laws that then have an impact outside of our homes. Feminist knew this when they began the suffrage movement. This cause our society to change massively and not for the better. We need to fight back with better ideas and put laws in place that reverse the negative impacts that have happened in our society.

Or, we can just wait for the actual collapse to fully happen and then in the destruction of that, order naturally resets. When societies need building, females are happy to support their men in the process. It is only when those societies are stable that the feminist begin to make demands.

TLDR. Do you want to change people’s minds or do you want to be impressed with tour own perceived rhetorical brilliance?

You’ve already accused me of being female dominated.You’ve made other factually inaccurate statements. It’s not about protecting women. It’s about protecting the truth. You’re just wrong.

Having a penis doesn’t mean your ideas don’t get challenged. Why isn’t you can’t take some pushback without getting your feelings hurt?

You don’t know the community because you’re accusing us of being white knights and you don’t understand true patriarchy. There men here who have lived it for decades. There are men here who have plumbed the depths of where failure as a man can take them and come back from it.

You have told us nothing about yourself. No one knows if you’re 18 and single or have any achievements whatsoever that would allow you to sit in judgement of us.

What I should have said is, let the community get to know you. You dont have the gravitas to get to scold us yet.

 

[MemeFan]

It is amazing how many feminist like to involve themselves with biblical families! The irony is that many of them do not even realize their leanings...

Because whole Western culture is feminist.

Like current culture is Marxist and most don't notice. It's like asking fish about water.

EDIT: Grammar

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

TLDR. Do you want to change people’s minds

I am making people think. That is going to cause some to change their minds and perhaps others to further be fixed in their current beliefs.
Either way, I am trying to do it civilly.

or do you want to be impressed with tour own perceived rhetorical brilliance?

Why do you think I would be impressed with "tour own perceived rhetorical brilliance?" Where have I made any statements that would lead someone to that conclusion?

You’ve already accused me of being female dominated.

I have already shown that this is not true but, doing it AGAIN!
Here is what you actually stated that I had responded to:

My experience is that it’s daughters that stay engaged in their own families and bring their husbands into that orbit. Sons tend to gravitate towards their wife’s family.

I’ve seen it across three generations now.

Nowhere in your statement did you indicate that it was YOUR family that you were talking about. You said "My experience" Not, "In my family"
Given that I had been speaking about society/culture at large, and your response did not indicate " Your Family", I took this to mean that your lifetime of experience had shown you a pattern different from what I was professing to be the ideal.

When you came at me with the following statement:

You’ve been speaking out of your ass this entire time. You have no idea how my family’s culture is dominated.

I immediately responded to let you know that it was not directed at you or your family but to the culture at large.

I am not talking about your family culture. WOW ! Culture was referring to society at large. To think that was directed at your family was a bit myopic!

For you to now repeat the premise that I was :

You’ve already accused me of being female dominated.

means that you are not committed to being truthful in conversation. So, yeah, there is that!

Then you go on to make a bold statement against me:

You’ve made other factually inaccurate statements.

Ok. So, I hate the idea of having made any factually inaccurate statements. I do from time to time but I am committed to the truth and when I am in error, I want to correct myself. So, indulge me, please provide my factually inaccurate quotations here for me so that I can know what you are even referring to. And if there are actual quotes that are factually inaccurate, please cite for me the factual reference so that I can know that it is not simply your opinion that is in play but FACTS as you claim them to be. This may be difficult for you but YOU besmirch my name by saying that I am making factually inaccurate statements. If it is true, then you owe me this.

Then you say this:

Having a penis doesn’t mean your ideas don’t get challenged.

This implies that I indicated that being a man somehow entitles me to not having my ideas challenged. Never have I said that and that is not even a belief that I hold. Again, it is a straw man argument intended to make it appear as I took a position that I did not take, in an effort to make me look bad. If you want to make me look bad, use my own words. If they are bad, we can discuss them.

Why isn’t you can’t take some pushback without getting your feelings hurt?

This seems to be a response to my quote from above where I point out how uncivil you are to many people:

Your caustic response to me was so classic of many of the responses I have seen you give and so over the top with aggression that I am wondering why you feel the need to attack people this way. In a thread about a month ago, you were more kind to a man who was full on calling us all out as vipers and telling us how evil we were in huge reposts over and over again than you are to many people here trying to participate in more proper dialogue.
I do not understand your personality. And now you pop in here and tell me that I need to meet you guys in person to get to know you better. Why? Who would want to meet you in person? Many people yes but you are generally not pleasant to anyone that you disagree with. So, the message seems to be that we all need to be very agreeable to you or we will receive a heaping helping of nastiness in return.
This is not true of the other moderators. I have never seen them act the way you do. So, as a bibfam proponent, inviting me to a meeting that you would be attending is really a dis-invite. I have been making plans to meet up at the next meetup and now am reconsidering it altogether.

In this case, your push back was against a premise that I was not making and your push back was not civil.

As I pointed out above, you are purposely caustic to those that differ in opinion from you.
For example, this kind of reply seems way out of line from any member of the community but for it to be from a moderator is nuts!

lol, you jackass. Read verse 8. Holy shit you must be a migrant worker because you are a cherry picking son of a bitch.

Then you said I was accusing "us" of being white knights.

You don’t know the community because you’re accusing us of being white knights

Nope, I did not accuse anyone, I did say,

Cue the white knights!!!

Those that are white knights tend to cue up and identify themselves. My laughing emoji was due to the predictability of it.

Then this:

you don’t understand true patriarchy

An empirical statement based on what?

And this gem...

No one knows if you’re 18 and single or have any achievements whatsoever that would allow you to sit in judgement of us.

1Ti 4:11 These things command and teach.
1Ti 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

And so, here we are discussing with words the concept of biblical families. You wish to use my youth to despise me. Wish away...
The instruction was to command and teach without letting others despise the message due to youth.

If there is a fault in the message, debate that.
Your words judge you.

How is it that you do not know me? I introduced myself and I cannot think of anything you have asked about me that is not carefully recorded in that introduction. To which, you were the FIRST to say "welcome"

Thanks for the heartfelt welcome to my introduction you clearly never read.....

You dont have the gravitas to get to scold us yet.

Is that an achievement the forum grants us? If so, what does it take to get it? Moderator status? Or ??

 

[Mark C]

Many here on BF express 'concern' about conversations that may give newcomers a poor impression.

Sadly, I think that is far more true of some "Moderators."

Apologies from those of us who disagree with elements of what that engenders.

 

[steve]

Many here on BF express 'concern' about conversations that may give newcomers a poor impression.

Sadly, I think that is far more true of some "Moderators."

Apologies from those of us who disagree with elements of what that engenders.

Well stated.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I am making people think. That is going to cause some to change their minds and perhaps others to further be fixed in their current beliefs.
Either way, I am trying to do it civilly.

Why do you think I would be impressed with "tour own perceived rhetorical brilliance?" Where have I made any statements that would lead someone to that conclusion?

I have already shown that this is not true but, doing it AGAIN!
Here is what you actually stated that I had responded to:

Nowhere in your statement did you indicate that it was YOUR family that you were talking about. You said "My experience" Not, "In my family"
Given that I had been speaking about society/culture at large, and your response did not indicate " Your Family", I took this to mean that your lifetime of experience had shown you a pattern different from what I was professing to be the ideal.

When you came at me with the following statement:

I immediately responded to let you know that it was not directed at you or your family but to the culture at large.

For you to now repeat the premise that I was :

means that you are not committed to being truthful in conversation. So, yeah, there is that!

Then you go on to make a bold statement against me:

Ok. So, I hate the idea of having made any factually inaccurate statements. I do from time to time but I am committed to the truth and when I am in error, I want to correct myself. So, indulge me, please provide my factually inaccurate quotations here for me so that I can know what you are even referring to. And if there are actual quotes that are factually inaccurate, please cite for me the factual reference so that I can know that it is not simply your opinion that is in play but FACTS as you claim them to be. This may be difficult for you but YOU besmirch my name by saying that I am making factually inaccurate statements. If it is true, then you owe me this.

Then you say this:

This implies that I indicated that being a man somehow entitles me to not having my ideas challenged. Never have I said that and that is not even a belief that I hold. Again, it is a straw man argument intended to make it appear as I took a position that I did not take, in an effort to make me look bad. If you want to make me look bad, use my own words. If they are bad, we can discuss them.


This seems to be a response to my quote from above where I point out how uncivil you are to many people:

In this case, your push back was against a premise that I was not making and your push back was not civil.

As I pointed out above, you are purposely caustic to those that differ in opinion from you.
For example, this kind of reply seems way out of line from any member of the community but for it to be from a moderator is nuts!


Then you said I was accusing "us" of being white knights.

Nope, I did not accuse anyone, I did say,

Those that are white knights tend to cue up and identify themselves. My laughing emoji was due to the predictability of it.

Then this:

An empirical statement based on what?

And this gem...

1Ti 4:11 These things command and teach.
1Ti 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

And so, here we are discussing with words the concept of biblical families. You wish to use my youth to despise me. Wish away...
The instruction was to command and teach without letting others despise the message due to youth.

If there is a fault in the message, debate that.
Your words judge you.

How is it that you do not know me? I introduced myself and I cannot think of anything you have asked about me that is not carefully recorded in that introduction. To which, you were the FIRST to say "welcome"

Thanks for the heartfelt welcome to my introduction you clearly never read.....

View attachment 9440



Is that an achievement the forum grants us? If so, what does it take to get it? Moderator status? Or ??

You have to admit that “cherry picking” line was pretty damn funny!

Look, if you can’t take the heat just don’t engage, and remember that your interactions with others can come off the same way to them that mine do to you.

I engage with men who claim to be scholars and religious leaders. I have no obligation to be gentle with them. Christ wasn’t. John the Baptist wasn’t and neither was Paul.

You’re engaging with women who are just staring their opinion. Another assumption of patriarchy is that men and women are different.

And obviously my experience with three generations was referring to my family, that’s a silly evasion for you to attempt.

 

[Mark C]

Look, if you can’t take the heat just don’t engage, and remember that your interactions with others can come off the same way to them that mine do to you.

Hardly. He doesn't claim "Moderator" privileges.

 

[Mark C]

I engage with men who claim to be scholars and religious leaders. I have no obligation to be gentle with them. Christ wasn’t. John the Baptist wasn’t and neither was Paul.

And if anybody else dared to compare themselves directly with "Christ," or "John the Baptist," or "Paul," you'd tear 'em a new asshole, even it you had to take their comment out-of-context to do it.

And you have.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

You have to admit that “cherry picking” line was pretty damn funny!

Nope! It and the many other statements you make like that are purposeful to cause people not to engage in conversations that they know you would disagree with them on. Like hitting someone on the head and blaming them for feeling the pain.

Look, if you can’t take the heat just don’t engage, and remember that your interactions with others can come off the same way to them that mine do to you.

Even if they do, your not in there telling them to "take the heat or leave" the way you are here. White knights earn their monikers.

You’re engaging with women who are just staring their opinion. Another assumption of patriarchy is that men and women are different.

This may be the most helpful statement you have made. Please inform us on the approved way we are to interact with the feminine here as opposed to the men. When they espouse their opinions, are we to nod in agreement regardless of the statements? Show us the rules....

And obviously my experience with three generations was referring to my family, that’s a silly evasion for you to attempt.

I am in NO WAY trying to evade that you were referring to your family. PLEASE READ --> What I am saying is that I did not realize you were speaking about your family.

To claim I did think that is to claim you know my thoughts.


I addressed your POST/s above with care. You have responded without any diligence. There were many issues that you simply disregarded even though they were statements that had been designed to harm my reputation.

You do not seem to be an honest broker of the very conversation of which you have control.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Hardly. He doesn't claim "Moderator" privileges.

I wasn’t a moderator for over a decade of very robust argumentation here Mark and you know that.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And if anybody else dared to compare themselves directly with "Christ," or "John the Baptist," or "Paul," you'd tear 'em a new asshole, even it you had to take their comment out-of-context to do it.

And you have.

Your testosterone is low again. I didn’t compare myself to them, I cited their examples.

 

[Mark C]

I wasn’t a moderator for over a decade of very robust argumentation here Mark and you know that.

And I look back on those days with great Fondness.

Would that it were still the case!

 

[Mark C]

Your testosterone is low again. I didn’t compare myself to them, I cited their examples.

You again didn't read what I wrote.

Addendum: Which seems to be the thrust of the valid complaint above.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You again didn't read what I wrote.

Addendum: Which seems to be the thrust of the valid complaint above.

That is exactly what you wrote Mark. You said I compared myself to Christ.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Nope! It and the many other statements you make like that are purposeful to cause people not to engage in conversations that they know you would disagree with them on. Like hitting someone on the head and blaming them for feeling the pain.


Even if they do, your not in there telling them to "take the heat or leave" the way you are here. White knights earn their monikers.



This may be the most helpful statement you have made. Please inform us on the approved way we are to interact with the feminine here as opposed to the men. When they espouse their opinions, are we to nod in agreement regardless of the statements? Show us the rules....



I am in NO WAY trying to evade that you were referring to your family. PLEASE READ --> What I am saying is that I did not realize you were speaking about your family.

To claim I did think that is to claim you know my thoughts.


I addressed your POST/s above with care. You have responded without any diligence. There were many issues that you simply disregarded even though they were statements that had been designed to harm my reputation.

You do not seem to be an honest broker of the very conversation of which you have control.

You and Mark are going to be good friends.

The way to respond to the women here is to engage their ideas, not to spew scorn and insults. The two women you have engaged are very upfront about not being completely sold on everything that gets espoused here.

They don’t have to be sneered at with derogatory labels. They can and will defend themselves but I will set the guard rails. For you that means no calling them feminists. You can explain why an idea is feminist. Make your case.

am in NO WAY trying to evade that you were referring to your family. PLEASE READ --> What I am saying is that I did not realize you were speaking about your family.

To claim I did think that is to claim you know my thoughts.

No, to claim I was supposed to know that you were referring to society at large is wanting me to know your thoughts. You don’t get credit for your intentions, you get judged on your words. I’m not a mind reader and only a female dominated worldview would expect me to be. Take responsibility for your words and stop acting like you deserve extra consideration. If your words can’t be trusted why are you even engaged in a forum? You communicated poorly, again, and are acting like you’re the victim.

 

[Mark C]

Nope! It and the many other statements you make like that are purposeful to cause people not to engage in conversations that they know you would disagree with them on. Like hitting someone on the head and blaming them for feeling the pain.

Bingo!