Over half of all gun deaths in America are suicides.
Last week, in the discussion In Case You Think I’m Being Rough…, Carrie asked the following question:
So, what happens when a woman agrees to the above and she’s still unmarried? What more can she do to make marriage “desirable for men”??
I really did not have time to think that one through, given that I was getting ready to head to Ohio to visit my dad, who was visiting his brother.
However, having pondered the question, I’m as stumped as I was when I saw it last week. Here are the reasons:
- Any answer to this question–interpreted wrongly–could lead a gal to assume that she is not fit to marry until she satisfies x or y. Then I run the risk of getting lumped into the Debbie Maken camp of saying, “his refusal to reward so-and-so is understandable…” I refuse to go there.
- The term “desirability” is nebulous, as matters that may make a gal undesirable to me might be perfectly ok for John Doe. Our good friend S/C has mentioned that taller men tend to prefer short women; on the other hand, I have no qualms with taller women, even if I’d have to stand on a stepladder to kiss her…(FWIW: I’m cool with shorties, too.)
- Anything I say in response to this question might be interpreted as an attempt to impose my particular preferences on the general.
With those caveats in mind, here is my best attempt to answer the question. As I list these items, I am assuming “all other things being equal” (i.e. common beliefs regarding doctrinal matters, church styles, etc.).
Intelligence without Contentiousness
Even those like myself–who want a SAHM wannabe–appreciate gals who are intelligent. We even appreciate gals who can think critically and challenge us. What we don’t want is someone who is always trying to upstage us.
As Vox Day once said: we want a confidante, not a competitor.
BTW: a college degree is not necessarily required for this. Bravo Echo–an ex of mine who would probably be my wife, but for the bulimia that consumed her–was a GED graduate who had no college degree. She was sharp as a tack.
Good street smarts, being well-informed of what is going on, and being able to speak intelligently–and ask good questions–will impress the guys.
Recently, a gal asked me what my favorite Scripture passage was. I gave her a completely outside-the-box answer. (Christina: Don’t you dare tell ANYONE! LOL) At first she did not understand why I picked it, but when I explained the basis to her, the lights went off.
I’m not saying that a gal must give me those types of answers to spiritual questions, but let’s just say I can tell when someone is giving me a canned cliche versus something that reflects having fought the hard battles of life, and still being able to stand.
This may be the most difficult area to discern. Only one gal I’ve dated–in retrospect–scored very well here. And she’s dead. (Breast cancer got her at age 43).
Kiesling points this out as a common complaint by the guys, although I think most guys need to get the logs out of their own eyes on the issue of weight. (The most reliable stats only have the guys 2% better than the women on obesity, and both sexes have a very high rate.)
We guys are visual, and that has been the case for thousands of years. It ain’t changing.
The good news: most of us guys aren’t looking for the super-hottie types. We just want a gal who takes reasonable care of herself. Most guys I know share the same sentiments, and Kiesling’s findings are in the same ballpark.
Have these idiots ever learned the rules of firearms safety:
- The firearm is always loaded. (Never assume otherwise!)
- Always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction. (Never at anything that you ought not shoot.)
- Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot. (No matter how they do it in the movies!)
- Know your target, and what is beyond your target.
I want to know WTF they were doing aiming weapons at civilians, including children? This, after all, was a demonstration, not a re-enactment of the Kent State Massacre.
Apparently, this was the work of one soldier, who may be prosecuted. They should throw the book at him.
Because I am single and Christian, many of the discussions on this blog pertain to issues of Christian singleness. As a result, those discussions often involve other matters, such as feminism, masculinity, and tangential issues involving the workplace, the political sphere, and the focus of the Church.
Sadly, looking at the most visible and published Christian leaders, the men are getting kicked around like soccer balls.
We have some “Christian family counselors” suggesting that they have never seen a marriage dissolve in which the man wasn’t wholly at fault. This is reflective of the undercurrent of “headship theology”, the misapplication of which has led to heretical dogma, in addition to the “Marriage Mandaters”.
Take our friends at Boundless, for example.
Whenever they provide a perspective on Christian singleness, it’s almost always either (a) Debbie Maken or someone like-minded, (b) a proponent of “Biblical dating”, or (c) something along the lines of “women are experiencing this, and it’s because men are/are not doing this…”
Or take Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler–who in many instances would qualify as an ally on these pages–who uses his position to browbeat men with ideas that are also un-Biblical.
It is against such backdrops that this blog–and others such as Biblical Manhood–are commenting.
What we do here is provide the other side of the story, a side that is largely ignored by mainstream evangelical leaders. Where possible, we have even included statistical informationi that at least provide a prima facie case that we are hardly being one-sided. (Sadly, statistics on Christian singles is very difficult to establish, because the primary age group from which most of those ranks exist has all but fallen off the map in the Church. More on that later.)
The male bloggers here are usually even-handed. SXM, myself, singleman, and Anakin have a wider set of experiences; Adam is still a young pup; Cubbie has had to fight off demons to which very few of us can relate. One of the ladies–Ame, who has had some harrowing experiences of her own–usually agrees with us.
In fact, it’s a pattern: the older folks usually agree with us. They have seen what we have seen. Even A.J. Kiesling, author of Where Have All the Good Men Gone, concedes many of those same points that SXM, Anakin, singleman, Adam, and myself have made. And her study is more scientific than anything that Debbie Maken bothered to undertake.
No one is perfectly objective, nor do I make any claim to such. On the other hand, we tend to be intellectually honest around here. We’re all grownups, we understand that this is a highly-charged set of topics.
On the other hand, the guys are commenting against a backdrop of leaders who are willfully blind. Like the Pharisees of old, they are too busy seeking the praise of one another that they are woefully unaware of the damage they are doing to men.
While I will not agree on every response to the dilemma (i.e. the “Marriage Strike”), I won’t deny that I (a) understand their point, and (b) I can see a case for what they are doing. At the very least, it sends the message that there is a lot of anger out there, and the men are sick and tired of a culture that blames them for everything.
The anger is real and justified; all the responses are not justified, but the underlying anger is reasonable and substantial.
For the rest of us, we are simply being prudent in our choices. Are all of us perfect in that? No. On the other hand, some risk-aversion is in order, if for no other reason than the fact that our overall risk has increased through no fault of our own.
Especially if you want your kids to learn math.
Keep an eye on him. At this point, it’s even money that McNutball picks him for the Veep slot. Even though this year will be a disaster for the GOP, there will likely be a conservative resurgence.
If Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) does not have any scandals attached to him–and assuming he doesn’t flub it as governor of Louisiana–he may be the next Reagan.
He’s a Christian. At this point he seems quite the conservative. He is very personable.
He definitely has traction, and he may be the rising star that the GOP badly needs.
Get ready for the ride. The Federal Reserve would LOVE to keep cutting rates, but they have finally accepted that inflation is already too high.
Basically, the Fed is hoping and praying that they will not have to raise rates. Trouble is, they will have to. And when they do, the banking industry will be begging for another bailout.
We haven’t had any global warming in ten years–1998 was our hottest year measured–and last year was the largest single-year temperature drop ever recorded.
But the truth has never been an object to the Chicken Littles whose meal ticket depends on Global Warming hysteria.
Our intel community engineered the most ludicrous black-ops that embarrassed our country; failed to notice that the Soviet Union was imploding (Reagan called it correctly, however); they provided bad intel on Saddam’s WMD program; they were useful as tits on a boar hog pre-9/11.
Now they want us to believe them about global warming and their extrapolation to immigration policy.
Piss on the whole lot of them.
Read what our friend at Many Luxury Vacations has to say. I cannot say that I support everything he says, but if you want a no-holds-barred assessment of the angst among Christian men, he provides it without varnish.
Other than the occasional expletive on my part, SXM, Anakin and myself are voices of moderation–if not liberals LOL–on the men’s front.
In Georgia, convicted sex offenders are prohibited from volunteering in church settings. At first, this sounds like a good way to crack down on potential abuses, except the devil is in the details.
Law or no law, churches are already responsible for vetting potential volunteers. This is a matter of prudence. At a prior church, all children’s workers had to have criminal background checks, in addition to extensive questionnaires with respect to past sexual conduct outside of marriage. On top of that, there were stringent rules with respect to (a) the contact adults can have with the children, and (b) the requirement for multiple adults to be present at all times. Could a sex offender slip through the cracks? Yep. But that church demonstrated reasonable due diligence.
As a minister of education, I worked with the pastor to ensure that adults and children were monitored for their own protection.
That was important, too, as we did have a sexual predator among us. After getting married and joining another church, he molested kids at his home. But none of the offenses happened on our watch. In that sense we succeeded, but it would have been nice to snag his sorry ass before he could do any real damage. (He had no criminal record until the offenses for which he is now serving a 20-year sentence.)
As for the Georgia law, it is an unnecessary intrusion of the State into Church affairs. And it is nebulous as all get-out. Keep in mind that a “sex offender” can include everyone from a man who–as a 16-year-old–had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend to the stereotypical child molester who keeps extensive logs of his activities (like the physics teacher busted at my high school in 1983).
Do we prohibit a man who–as a teen–made a bonehead decision from serving as an usher? What about picking up trash or mowing the lawn?
At the end of the day, the churches have the incentive–in the form of insurance and liability law–and wherewithal–in the form of background checks–to perform due diligence.
Ergo, the Georgia law is just State intruding into matters of the Church. You may cheer it now, but mark my words: the “cure” in this case is worse than the disease.
This is one more step toward State takeover of the Church.