I appreciate what your trying to say but I have pretty much attacked all things MGTOW. I don't refute that, or regret it. I did say they highlight some valid points but about the problems in society but you don't have to be MGTOW to recognize those.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
MGTOW A Culture Killer?
- Thread starter Nikud
- Start date
You don't, but pointing out those flaws in society is part of what that movement does. Are you saying they are wrong to point out the obvious?
When radical Muslims point out the decadent and immoral culture the west has allowed itself to live in, I can agree, even if I deny their legitimacy in anythything else they say.
But, you are entitled to your own conclusions.
No there not wrong to do that, IMO, just there solution for dealing with those problems.
So then you are not attacking all things MGTOW as I see it.
Hey, if I was single in this day and age, I don't know if I could manage the mine field of relationships. Many men have taken to mail order brides from the Phillipines or other countries where the respect for men still applies.
The PUA community is actually very interesting. It got started on a Usenet news group from way back. A bunch of guys were wondering how to pick up girls. So what they did was experimented. Basically they used science (trial and error) and then reported back what they learned from "field reports". And what they found out that what women say they want, and want they really want (what works) is very different. The distillation of found knowledge that they developed is called game theory.
Game theory works for immoral activity like pickups, but it can work just as easily for moral activity such as to find a wife, or even to keep your existing wife(s) interested, which is sort of the premise of the Dalrock Blog that others have previously mentioned. I think maybe in some ways to have multiple wives you almost need to be a natural at it.
I have not used game theory to do anything immoral, but I have tried some of the game techniques and they do work. They do build connection and intimacy. It is all very interesting from a sociological point of view.
If you are interested at all in male-female relationships I highly recommend that you at least be familiar with the subject. Actually I think they are even useful in understanding male-male relationships, because part of the theory is how you interact with the other males present.
But in the past, men were also allowed the authority to go along with the financial support. If the woman was his, then it was his responsibility to pay for her.
All that has changed now. They want the men to keep paying, but the woman can do what she wants.
No fault divorce is a great evil. A man can get married and do everything right and through the whim of his wife she can break her promise, take his house, and his kids, and then the still expect the man to pay for it. And if he refuses he goes to jail. This is a very new development.
Read some 19th century literature. In the 1800s a divorce took an act of parliment. And if a woman wanted out she could not take the kids with her.
Later, in the 20th century, she had to prove wrong doing in divorce to get anything/everything.
Anyway the point I am trying to make is not that financial support is anything new. What is new is that it is stripped of any kind of authority or accountability from the man. He is just a cog in the machine who has to turn over the majority of his paycheck even though, through no fault of his own everything important to him has been stripped away.
I would say MGTOW is a direct and logical response to no fault divorce specifically, because civil marriage, at least in the U.S. is a really bad deal for men. Further, as Dalrock has demonstrated, this model is not sustainable in the long run. The system is going to collapse.
This is an interesting question. Did we get an answer on it?
I would say 50/50 from Romans 3:23.
Where I placed this statement in my post gave it a negative contation. That wasn't my intention. I should have placed it after I quoted Andrew and said.
It was meant to say that, I'm starting to understand a few guys here better. For those who took this statement as a judgement of their character lacking in some way, I apologize. (This is not an acceptance of your arguments)
Hey, what's that! OH NO DUCK IT'S A FLAMING BRICK!!!!!! Wait, there's something written on it, what's it say? "Providing for your wife is not part of the Law." Ooooh, oooh too hot! Drop it,drop it !!!!
"What's the ratio of abysmal quality of modern women to abysmal quality of modern man."
This is an interesting question. Did we get an answer on it?
I would say 50/50 from Romans 3:23.
What does the Bible say?
Now with respect to divorce, you're only looking at a 50% failure rate on average; so not as bad as Ecc in that context.
However in divorce we see that 70-90% of the time it is the wife violating her oath. Neither the OT nor the NT allowed women to divorce; but did allow men to. Now we know why.
It is also worth noting in light of Deuteronomy 22:20-21 that only 1 in 10 modern women are virgins on their wedding day.
This is the reason traditional cultures restrict female sexual/marital options and it was the father who chose/approved her mate. The weaker vessels behaved badly otherwise.
Neither the OT or the NT record a woman divorcing her husband. This is different than allowing.
As an aside, I am not convinced that Moses' wife did not 'divorce' him and return to her father and then after the father saw that God had blessed him by using him to lead the Israelites free, her father brought her back.
If this is the case, this would be the oldest record that I am aware of a woman divorcing her husband and would probably be the source of the later Hebrew custom of allowing a woman to divorce her husband if she despised him.
Another record is in Jasher where Lamech's two wives are preparing to give him the boot for killing a man. He begged them not to and explained that it was an accident so they relented.
Please accept my apologies if I misunderstood your point and thus commenting on something you didn't say.
I think that these are two distinct and differentiable things. It seems to me that a female brought up to value her virginity and to seek a man of God could be mostly left to herself with regard to life decisions. A female that did not have the benefit of such upbringing, or perhaps she rejected it, might benefit from more direct fatherly input on her decisions. I think Sirach 26:10 addresses this; "If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Brenton LXX)
Exodus 21:10-11
If he takes to himself another woman, he is not to reduce her food, clothing or conjugal rights.If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing,
This is my understand of it. A man is accountable for every woman under his authority, a man must make sure her food and clothing are at least equal to what it was for her before she was under his authority. If he can't let it be reduced then he must provide it.
Last edited:
When I say allowed, I echo Christ in Matthew 19:8. The relevant OT passage on dissolution of marriage is in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The Mosaic allowance was only granted to men. That doesn't sit well to us moderns saturated with teachings on equality. But you need only look at the marriage stats to see the wisdom of it.
Thank you, I'm not familiar with Sirach. That is a good example of a father exercising wisdom. He had that option because in both the Old and New Testament the decision was the father's. In general though, women are famously bad at choosing suitable mates (queue cliche'ed complaints about bad boys and 'where have all the good men gone'). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she had no say; just not the final say.
In generations past they taught women to value virginity and seek Godly men. But they also closely chaperoned the daughters, worked to cultivate opportunities with good men, kept away bad options, and insisted on early marriage. She wasn't abandoned to find a mate for herself but had a whole extended family helping. And she wasn't encouraged to delay marriage by a decade or more.
But I'm dubious that training alone is sufficient. I've seen no evidence of that working among Christians today. It has been broadly observed that the abstinence movement resulted in young Christian men remaining virgins while the women slept around.
Can you provide the source for that census.
All really good points, plus arranged marriages which were taken seriously, were alot more prevalent .
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...omen-initiate-divorce-much-more-men-heres-why
Most divorces are initiated by women, and most of the time the issue is another woman.
I have read that one and found a few others like it that fall around the 70%. I was hoping for one that shows a breakdown and showed the closer to the 90%.
Edit: I found one that was at 85% initiation by women but it showed the divorce rate at about 35% so I question it's accuracy.
Edit: I found one that was at 85% initiation by women but it showed the divorce rate at about 35% so I question it's accuracy.
Rockfox; you're welcome. Yea, I like Sirach, there are a lot of gems in it, even a possible allusion to polygyny there in ch 26.
I think it might depend on what sort of training is involved. I don't really have any virginity-at-the-altar statistics among the Catholic vs Protestants, but my impression is that the Catholics teach "premarital-sex" as one of those things you just don't do ever, at all, period, end of story, full stop. Well, they do teach that it is a "mortal sin". Again it is my impression that the Protestants teach "premarital-sex" more as something you should really try to avoid. The Protestants are not quite as homogeneous as the Catholics, so there might be a greater variation in what different churches teach than there is among the Catholics. The Protestants might benefit from taking a harder line on the matter like the Catholics do (if my respective impressions are accurate), or maybe even better yet; teach something closer to reality which seems to be; "sex *IS* your marriage ceremony".
Tell young people that "you just don't do it", but if you do; you just had your marriage ceremony and wedding night as newly-weds. See Exodus 22:16. In this event, young people might be more circumspect about who they climb into bed with; if they knew they were going be stuck with that person. Hearing of the occasional shotgun wedding might help with the quality of the circumspection. With that in mind, it sure is interesting how they mock shotgun weddings on TV, and then in another scene they say "...well have you slept with him yet?"
I think it might depend on what sort of training is involved. I don't really have any virginity-at-the-altar statistics among the Catholic vs Protestants, but my impression is that the Catholics teach "premarital-sex" as one of those things you just don't do ever, at all, period, end of story, full stop. Well, they do teach that it is a "mortal sin". Again it is my impression that the Protestants teach "premarital-sex" more as something you should really try to avoid. The Protestants are not quite as homogeneous as the Catholics, so there might be a greater variation in what different churches teach than there is among the Catholics. The Protestants might benefit from taking a harder line on the matter like the Catholics do (if my respective impressions are accurate), or maybe even better yet; teach something closer to reality which seems to be; "sex *IS* your marriage ceremony".
Tell young people that "you just don't do it", but if you do; you just had your marriage ceremony and wedding night as newly-weds. See Exodus 22:16. In this event, young people might be more circumspect about who they climb into bed with; if they knew they were going be stuck with that person. Hearing of the occasional shotgun wedding might help with the quality of the circumspection. With that in mind, it sure is interesting how they mock shotgun weddings on TV, and then in another scene they say "...well have you slept with him yet?"
Jasher? Are we accepting Jasher?
I think the bigger issue is not whether we can find a record of a woman leaving her husband somewhere. It is more about can we find somewhere where God approve of it? For example, presumably Joseph was not wrong in wanting to "put away" Mary. It just that he was not aware of the full circumstances. And, of course, Jesus' own words about a man divorcing a woman for marital unfaithfulness. Where does God approve of a woman leaving her husband?
You might be able to make a case for Hagar, but I am thinking that even in that case God was supporting Abraham in his weakness (letting his wife have her way) and not that this was a good think in any way. It would have been better for her to stay.