Why The Church Wants Men To Be Betaized Care Bears

***Just to be 100% clear for any new readers. I am an Atheist / ex-Christian. I don’t hate Christians. In this post I am not advocating for a return to marriage or sexual laws that involve large rocks being smashed against skulls. Nor do I think most Christians do either, except perhaps for a few unusually enthusiastic ones who can’t get dates despite the sexual imbalance in the pews in favor of men. Also there’s a world of difference between consensually agreeing to a Captain and First Officer styled relationship and returning to husbands owning wives in a legal sense, yada yada yada. Also don’t do drugs, because drugs are bad, mmmkay.***

Let explain how the Church feminizes husbands. I’m going to paint with a wide brush and speak in very general tones. That way I can offend everyone with my ignorance and wiggle out of being held to a position by saying I couldn’t cover everything in a single blog post.

Back around the time of Jesus, marriage was a very one-sided arrangement in favor of men. Marriage was essentially a theological construct that framed the husband as the one in direct control of the wife to the point of de facto ownership of her. Frequently the “wives obey your husbands” and “slaves obey your masters” instructions run immediately after each other, which should send up a red flag in your head that there’s a whole lot of assumption of the status quo being just peachy happening in the minds of the writers.

Jesus’ command to “not divorce” is only directed at husbands for example, because wives couldn’t divorce their husband, both as a legal and practical matter. Oh they could probably make a dash for it and leave him, but it’s basically going to be out of the frying pan and into the fire. Not many lifestyle opportunities existed for such women other than prostitution and being very very hungry. The men owned the property and the children from the marriage.

There’s also something about having your head very publicly smashed open, slowly and clumsily, by an angry mob that puts a damper on women cheating on their husbands. Plus hubby could easily get away with an occasional beating on a disobedient or unproductive wife. Marital rape is also not a crime in this time period in that she was the husband’s property, thus you couldn’t rape your wife for the same reason you couldn’t steal your own horse.

All in all, the entire marital structure of the time is one that utterly frames the husband as dominant and the wife as submissive by default and without concern for the wishes of either party of the marriage. Though one assumes the men didn’t complain overly much. If you think of marriage in New Testament times as being similar to something the Taliban thinks is a good idea about marriage minus the burkas, you’ve about got it right.

In Game parlance, the marriage of those times creates a huge structural Alpha boost for the husband, to the point that Married Game is totally redundant. Cook me dinner, raise my children, clean my house, come over here and take your clothes off. Being Beta isn’t really a concern save bringing in an income.

Thus it is in this context that all the New Testament demands to be a lovey-dovey Care Bear toward your wife need to be taken. Reading between the lines, commands to husbands boil down to “Holy crap you guys are being assholes, would you please try and be a little nicer to your wives.” Or in other words… “Be More Beta!”  It’s trying to balance out the Alpha.

Or like I say…. “If the problem is you’re too Beta, add Alpha. If the problem is you’re too Alpha, add Beta.”

So fast forward to now…

Husbands don’t own wives. It’s illegal to assault your wife. Marital rape laws are on the books. Women have the ability to own property and support themselves financially. Wives can also initiate divorce. There’s a notable lack of public stoning for adultery. Or in Game parlance, all the legal and economic structurally created Alpha that husbands used to have, has been stripped away. Zero structural Alpha…

… and all that’s left are the Sunday morning sermons to be more Beta. It’s right there in the bible. Be more Beta. Be totally Beta… and that’s where for a whole lot of Christian men, it all goes terribly wrong. They fold up like wet napkins, their wife takes over and while the marriage is likely stable, it’s not readily confused with being erotic.

All that structural Alpha is gone, gone for good and rightly so. And to be fair, the majority of evangelical Christians who do believe in the husband leading the relationship, don’t have any expectation or desire for things like husbands actually owning the wives either.

What the modern husband has to understand, is that he has to bring his own Alpha to the marriage. There’s no one else that can create the desire for your wife to willingly submit to you… but you. There’s no one else who can make her hot to drop her pants for you… but you. There’s no one else who can make her think you’re the best option she has… but you.

I’m here to help, but I can’t do it for you either.

Welcome to Hardcore gentlemen. You only get one life.




  1. Will says

    That is a pretty decent job of biblical hermeneutics. Too often churches will interpret the bible in a way that is most advantageous to itself. With women as the primary attendees and a natural disposition to betaize men (from fallen nature, i.e. Genesis 1). Many churches cave to the pressure which drives men away.

    Much appreciated.

  2. McNabb says

    Of course, the smart men just don’t get married at all. I do have to say that, should I actually decide that I’d like kids enough to risk getting married again, it sure won’t be a woman at church. Non-religious women seem to be far more amenable, on average, than the typical woman I meet at church.

  3. LongLostFriend says

    “The Taliban minus the burkas”? Come on, Athol. You are showing a real lack of historical understanding here.

    If you see that the feminization of modern-day evangelicalism is a feature of Biblical Christianity rather than a capitulation to the feminized Western culture in which the church finds itself, your lack of historical understanding is not limited to that of the ancient Near East.

    In biblical terms, husbands do own wives, and wives their husbands (1 Corinthians 7). With regard to roles, however, there is a clear hierarchy established (Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 3). I find it interesting that you “read between the lines” to conclude that the New Testament is telling oppressive men to “be more beta,” while the passages instructing wives to submit are merely supporting “a status quo.”

    I don’t know if you have ever shared what caused you to embrace atheism, but it is posts like this that show me that, while you may not harbor an animosity toward most individual Christians, you exhibit something far-removed from the “objective” viewpoint you falsely claim for yourself.

  4. Zorro says

    I like your blog. I bought your book. I read your book. I like your book. This post is ridiculous.

  5. says

    I am a Christian, but i have never thought about the state of marriage during the NT time frame. Passages about husbands loving their wives seem to take on a different light. I suppose it makes sense though. In order to proberly execute humility, one must have something worth bragging about. To be meek, one must have power to place under control, and so loving your wife as a command only works from a place of male dominance over his wife.

  6. Dar says


    I find Athol’s comparison between the biblical guidelines prescribed around the time of Jesus Christ and that of the Taliban’s views on women minus the burkas quite accurate. What is the basis of my opinion? 1. The many historical documents, written history, and the citations from people who hold doctorates in history who describe what life was like around those periods. 2. The three trips I have made to the middle east, including two to Afghanistan where I witnessed the results of the stoning of an adultress woman in a Taliban dominated village, arranged marriages, and complete submission of females to males, starting in childhood.

    You, however, seem to think that your interpretation of a book that has been translated and altered dozens of times over hundreds of years is much more accurate thatn Athol’s interpretation of the same book merely because he is a proclaimed Aetheist.

    But that’s ok. Continue to throw around some large, multi-syllable words and feed your sense of wordliness because you went on a couple of third world mission trips where men with automatic weapons protected you while you slept. The rest of us Christians will listen to the aethist, have happy marriages, and get laid a lot.

  7. says

    Brilliantly put. In older times, structural factors led to men being ipso facto higher in status and power than their wives.

    I do a lot of reading at Haley’s Halo and she and I are both rather cynical about Nice Guy Christianity – not in terms of the faith itself but in terms of the social implementation of the community, creating a social order where male self-effacement and deference are the order of the day. In fact it is as you say – the men are being lectured as if they still have the structural power advantage they no longer have.

  8. says

    The command for wives to obey their husbands is put in Christological terms. In my tradition, the Catholic Church, it has always been taught that wives should obey their husbands. The teaching was not timebound, but is eternal. It is based in part on the natural order of creation.

    That said, I agree that the churches spend a lot of time “beta-ising” men. And I think it is indeed because they still think that men are too alpha. This hasn’t been true for generations.

    In general there has been an overemphasis on mercy at the expense of justice in all the Christian churches for a long time.

  9. Matt says

    If you think Christians are bad about beta-izing men, check out a bunch of Unitarian churches. Most of them will demionize straight white males from the pulpit most Sundays. It’s really a horrible environment.

  10. Jim says

    Read the church bulletin the other day and the female group in the church praised the re-authorization of VAWA. Needless to say, feminized political movements within the church are why it’s dying. Never mind that in my little neck of the woods, the number of bachelors who have never been married and are without children compared to the amount of people who can count themselves members within it should raise concerns.

  11. Eric says

    I’m not a Christian, but I think a lot of what you talk about here depends on the type of church. Many of the big popular megachurches of today are very feminized, but there are also a lot of Christians who are actively resisting that trend. We live in a rural area and I’ve noticed that most of the (Christian) weddings I go to these days have reintroduced the wording of “love, honor, and obey” to the bride’s vows (and not the husbands). A friend of mine who is a local pastor told me that is a very deliberate request made by many young couples who are more interested in the Biblical concept of marriage than the more secularized version that has been practiced in America for the last half century (often rubber stamped by the church). And I think part of that Biblical concept they are trying to get back to is for the husband to be expected to have an Alpha / leadership / captain role in the family. Other Beta concepts aside, the New Testament does teach that the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church. It’s hard to think of a more Alpha frame than that, even if it really isn’t my cup of tea…

    But I do think you bring up a great point in that even traditional Christian teachings seem to have very little focus on the more sensual and erotic aspects of marriage, and you’d be hard pressed (no pun intended) to find a pastor willing to give a sermon on how to get your wife’s panties all wet.

  12. Orville says

    It’s not everyday that I can say an aheist/former christian taught me something about the Bible. Well done. I think what some of the brothers are neglecting is that Athol wasn’t necessarily challenging the Biblical commands, but was describing the common marriage condition that most had back then when they entered into Christianity, i.e. the baggage they had when they became a believer.

  13. Mark says

    “All that structural Alpha is gone, gone for good and rightly so.”

    So, it’s a good thing that women can now freely divorce and commit adultery without repercussions?

    Also, if society has evolved from being one where the family unit and procreation were strongholds, to the current situation where society weakens men, breaks down family units, promotes sex without procreation, and aborts babies, well, that’s an interesting way for things to evolve.

    Game is not as effective as ensuring a strong family unit as an “alpha” society is.

  14. Dreadpiratkevin says

    Sometimes I wonder what it was that you rejected to become an atheist. Posts like this make it sound like something not readily recognizable as authentic Christianity. Be that as it may, you’re underlying point is accurate as far as it goes, Churches have in the last 50 years or so over emphasized the Beta, and actively repressed the Alpha in Christian men. You hit on one of the reasons, but not, I think, the most important. Churches that tend to betaize men do so because they have bought into the false dichotomy pushed by feminism. They have bought the idea that if the man is the leader, he will necessarily be a tyrant, and the ONLY way for a woman to not be oppressed by a man is to be completely equal in all things (meaning being the boss in reality of course). Any kind of male leadership is by it’s very nature oppressive to woman kind, or so we’re told, so men must be constantly brow beaten to be ‘nice’ and ‘loving’ and otherwise let the relationship be ruled by the woman’s emotions. Sadly, the church which should have been a bulwark against such destructive ideas caved early on to feminism and men have been fleeing the church ever since.

    As the churches emptied of men and filled up with women there was even greater pressure to tickle itching ears with a ‘man bad woman good’ theology to keep the pews full and the offerings flowing. As a result the divorce rate within nominal Christianity is nearly that of the general population.

    Eric: That has been my experience as well. Posts like this one and many others like the ones at Christian Men’s Defense Network like to paint all of evangelicalism with a broad brush, as if it’s homogeneous or monolithic, but it isn’t. The smaller, more independent branches of the church, especially in rural areas have not fallen prey feminist influence nearly as much as the mega-churches in more metropolitan areas for whatever reason. It also seems like there is an underground movement back towards a more biblical model of male led marriage. Maybe this generation, having grown up with masculine women and feminized men have simply had enough of the misery and realized that stodgy old grandma and grandpa were way happier then ‘enlightened’ mom and dad.

  15. rycamor says

    Well this his hardly the place to get into theological discussions or analysis of Athol’s psyche. Athol’s point largely stands on its own although traditional Christians tend to disagree on the value of structural Alpha. Part of the problem is modern society itself. I am old enough (at 46) to remember when men in general were just a little (or a lot) more manly than they are now, and women were encouraged to be feminine and a complement to the masculine in society rather than in competition with it. The modern sense of competition has forced the true alphas to be that much more alpha, while most other men have given up and retreated due to the relentless onslaught. Combine that with *many* other sociological and physical factors in the developed West (increase in sedentary work and increase in many industrialized foods tends to lower testosterone, passive entertainment like video games, TV, pornography, etc…), and you have a recipe for an emasculated male.

    The Church is of course still playing to the old script where men were ever in danger of losing control to their boiling masculinity. There was a time when the average man didn’t think it that strange to get in a fistfight, you know. The church tends to react on orders of decades too late to societal trends. I expect the established church to be pushing for men to leave behind their sensitive site and embrace the warrior within long after economic collapse has brought back an era of feudal warlords and raiding parties.

  16. says

    Just wanted to say, I’m one of those hardcore Christians and I found this incredibly amusing and insightful. While I don’t agree with 100% of it, I agree with the core message I got, that the pendulum has swung and most of Christianity hasn’t adjusted to match. And like you said, it’s not all churches, just the majority. My local church (I’m not sure about my denomination as a whole) is very strong on “the man is the head of the household”. I’ll keep reading if you keep writing.

    I’m considering writing a “MAP for Christians” answer to your post a week or two ago. If I do, I’ll let you know.

  17. KH says

    I also wonder why you say you are no longer a Christian and have become an atheist.

    I suppose it depends on what type of church you are in and if you really believe the Bible to be the “Word of God”.(not saying you in general obviously..since you say you are an atheist) I tend to doubt that you really are an atheist..but think you have a big bone to pick with Christianity!

    I have a great marraige to a very strong..I suppose what you would call strong Alpha guy..whom has never read your blog..He just knows how to be a great Christian Man and he’s been in churches our entire married life..almost 30 years now.

    I find some of your writings very good but I also find some of them to be completely smutty.All the porn stuff is not needed to have great sex..just saying!! Your wife sounds like a great girl..but when talking about her sometimes..well..lets just say..you don’t always come across as having lots of respect for her and that could still be done in a very manly alpha way!!

  18. Beeping Slooty says

    Thanks for this, Athol. Very interesting reading!

    I was raised in an especially cult-y flavor of Christianity — one very strongly associated with a certain candidate for the US Presidency. ::: cue the evangelicals screaming, “But but but, Mormons aren’t REAL Christians!” :::

    Anyway, now that I have recovered from the churchy brainwashing, I believe that the rules and admonitions in scripture and in church hegemony are based in something even more basic to the human condition than what you explored in your post. Namely, it is about control. It is all about the church controlling the sheep. If you can control what people wear, what they eat, who they interact with and marry, and control their sexuality, you essentially own them. Having control over the flock keeps the money flowing into the church coffers.

    The church is the alpha, and the adherents, both male and female, are beta to the church.

  19. None says

    Poor on history; witness John the Baptist (beheaded for complianing about a woman dumping her husband and marrying another); the Samaritan woman (the man you live with now is not your husband); and with the Romans having taken away the power to condemm to death, no stoning for adultery. (Suprised you missed Paul’s injunction to women to be veiled, though.)

  20. Sara says

    Athol what do you think of the Love and Respect book? I know it has been quite popular in Christian groups. Apologies if you have written about it before and i have missed it. The author seems to advocate a model for marriage in which the husband is the leader, based on scripture.

  21. Joe Commenter says

    Athol has written about his reasons for atheism in his book. He can defend himself plenty well. But I do not think he is anti-church or anti-christian.

    My wife constantly wants me to go to church. It’s a relatively conservative protestant organization that teaches that women should submit to their husbands. That part is fine. And yes, it is good for the kids to be exposed to a positive message. Religion is an important and valid part of many people’s lives.

    But I hate going to any church. The whole thing is creepy to me. CAll me what you will, but I don’t understand the point of having to make small talk with a bunch of people I do not know, and don’t really want to know. They are nice, quality people. No problem there. But I can have conversations w/ any number of quality people at work. I don’t need to spend my precious days off having convo’s that get me nowhere.

    Now if I were a single man, I would sign up for the biggest church w/ the hottest women. Church has an even better male/female ratio than college campuses have these days. How do the single men not understand that if you want to score a woman, you go to where the women are?

  22. says

    LongLostFriend already substantiated a few points I wanted to touch.

    -I don’t see what this has to do with Christianity anymore than it has to do with culture. Out of all of the customs (including circumcision and not eating certain meats), marriage was one that actually remained unchanged and supported by Paul’s writing. It’s no surprise that the same marriage customs essentially remained in effect for centuries and eventually pervaded other cultures.

    -There’s no where in the New Testament that even hints at telling a husband to “be more beta.” The man is recognized as the head of the wife (Eph. 5:22-23). A woman is instructed to submit to her husband and told not to deny him sex (1 cor. 7:5)

    Nonetheless, your conclusion is solid: we’ve lost structural leadership, so a man must bring his own into a relationship.

  23. says

    Wait. You’re a self-confessed atheist and former Christian, and you think you know what the church is teaching us? Why again should we pay any attention to an exegesis of doctrine to which you admittedly have severed all connection and about which you make up as you go?

    I sit in the pews. I have never heard preached anything close to your description of “betaized care bears.” Do you at least have examples I can dismantle, rather than vague and untouchable notions half-remembered from a former life?

    You hold yourself out as something of an expert on modern marriage, and yet you seem to have no familiarity with the Christian sacrament of matrimony, which at very least forms the expectations of the institution for a great many of your readers. Matrimony has not changed since women were chattel, nor does it have anything to do with hoary traditions that have since been sanitized by feminism. Would you like to know why women are no longer the property of men? Christian doctrine. Go figure, huh?

    Your atheism randomizes your pontifications about “married men” and their “sex life”; you have only nihilism and emotion to bounce your ideas against. In the vacuum you have substituted venerable principles of marriage with feminist assumptions, and then think it clever to nibble around the edges. You assume marriage has always been slavery for wives, as though you were an acolyte of Betty Friedan. But no worries! because you’re bringin’ back a lil’ of that old-time religion to give an alpha spark to marriage. And yet your courage fails when going after the foundational assumptions of feminism itself.

    Let me assist you, Betty Jr. A “marital structure … that utterly frames the husband as dominant and the wife as submissive by default” is not “similar to something the Taliban thinks is a good idea about marriage minus the burkas.” If you think that’s the case, you are Simone de Beauvoir “minus the” vagina. It is possible to be dominant without treating your wife as chattel. The assumption that the two are synonymous is one you share with militant feminism. And not only is that assumption wrong, it is invidious.

    So the feminist culture in its confusion removed all support for male-dominated marriages. Whatever, that’s their shtick. But what’s your excuse? Because you imagine the “burkas” coming out and adulteresses’ “head[s] very publicly smashed open?” Your remedial reading is the beginning of John 8 to give you a clue what the Christian revolution inaugurated to the world of intersexual relationships.

    No, you independently stumbled over a piece of immemorial Christian wisdom, failed to credit its source, and wrote a blog about your sui-generis “insight.” The “Married Man Sex Life” is also known as the “Christian Man Sex Life,” and it precedes your blog by thousands of years, your ignorance of the life in Christ notwithstanding. So do us all a favor, since you don’t have the grace to acknowledge your intellectual progenitors. Remain silent about what the church “wants” or “doesn’t want” for her communion until you make an effort to inform yourself through sources that haven’t resolved to destroy her.


  24. says

    Any time I write anything about Christianity, people will be offended and discount my viewpoint on principle simply because I am an atheist.

    I’m an atheist because I think there is no God. I can very much assure people that I was a very intent and eager Christian – full time Christian job, short term missions, preaching and on one occassion leading a retreat weekend. Leaving the faith was a very difficult and painful decision, but an honest one.

    That’s about it.

  25. says

    Matthew King has a point. I have benefited throughout my marriage from unconscious and more recently conscious Game (and I have learned and contributed here). But I think my wife is fairly compliant not just because of that, but because there is a good-Catholic-wife-knows-her-place subroutine usually running in her brain software as well.

    In some ways, Game is a substitute for good strong religion. And it is perfectly possible to have modified patriarchy that does not involve stoning of adulteresses, but does permit a healty, functioning society. We had it for hundreds of years.

  26. Dar says

    Quote from King A “Matrimony has not changed since women were chattel, nor does it have anything to do with hoary traditions that have since been sanitized by feminism.”

    I don’t know where to even start with this. I also don’t what to say to people who quote from a modern translation of several languages of a book that is mostly a collection of verbal stories passed down for hundreds of year, then written down, and constantly edited by man ( Council of Nicea or King James version anyone?) A lot of good things in the Bible, and a lot of life lessons to be learned, but the word for word from the mouth of God, it is not.

    Good job on attempting to explain your views of the game as it falls within the common present christian teachings Athol. Those will always be those who view their way as the only way, and that their church is “different”. Keep rocking.

  27. Michael Maier says

    I’m a seldom-church-attending Christian, but what little I’ve heard from any pulpit of any denomination does not wreck Athol’s points much. There’s a lot of feminization in churches out there and just because YOUR church doesn’t do it (and actually probably does in ways you haven’t thought of) doesn’t mean the message isn’t being put out there in a big way.

    Most Catholics wouldn’t call themselves, their priests or their church Communist, either. But I’ve heard enough directly from Catholic altars to make enough of a case that I will never donate tithes to the RCC coffers. I’d sooner give it all to a bum on the street.

  28. Dreadpiratkevin says

    Any time I write anything about Christianity, people will be offended and discount my viewpoint on principle simply because I am an atheist.

    Well, uh, yeah! Duh. I also don’t take financial advice from my plumber. Look, you’re really good at what you do, you help a lot of people. I hope you keep doing it and continue to succeed, but don’t act like you are in a position to speak into the church you’ve rejected. This post just smacks of the standard atheist tactic of completely distorting what the Bible says and then bravely attacking it. You seldom sink to that level. It’s not really offensive to me when you do, just a little disappointing.

  29. says

    ” I also don’t what to say to people who quote from a modern translation of several languages of a book that is mostly a collection of verbal stories passed down for hundreds of year, then written down, and constantly edited by man…”

    You’d be surprised to note that when a modern translation was compared to an original dead sea scroll, there was roughly 97% accuracy between the two texts.

    But we’re not here to talk about that, are we.

    “There’s a lot of feminization in churches out there and just because YOUR church doesn’t do it (and actually probably does in ways you haven’t thought of) doesn’t mean the message isn’t being put out there in a big way.”

    There’s quite a difference between “the church teaches this” and “the New Testament instructs this.” The former is indisputable. The latter is simply false.

  30. Chimpy says

    “You’d be surprised to note that when a modern translation was compared to an original dead sea scroll, there was roughly 97% accuracy between the two texts.”

    Theres about 98% commonality between the DNA of a chimp and a human, so a couple of percent can make a big difference to the end result

  31. LongLostFriend says

    Dar shows that he doesn’t understand how contemporary Bible translations are made. It isn’t a game of “Telephone.”

    And to reiterate, I haven’t seen a single Christian here defending what is going on in contemporary Western evangelicalism. It is clearly feminized and repulsive. We happen to view it as an aberration of New Testament principles rather than a feature of them.

    And yeah, Athol: posts like this are going to be divisive among your readership. I think you are aware of that when you post them. I am glad that you leave the comments section open for respectful dissent.

    I am aware that I will pull hate from a few people. However it’s worth the risk to me to benefit those hopefully more than a few people that can benefit from it. I’m not trying to win an Atheist vs Christian war here. If I was, my blog would be vastly different.

  32. Shanna says

    I’m a traditional Christian gal.
    I like Athol’s writing. Do I agree with 100% of it? Of course not. I just gloss over the parts that don’t mesh with my beliefs and realize that’s just who Athol is. Most of MMSL does not conflict with being a married Christian. I also sometimes watch PG-13 and rated R movies. Shocker, I know.

    The real trick in looking at marriage through the Christian view is to see it through what Jesus or the apostles said. NOT through what religious leaders or culture at that time dictated.
    Or what current culture at THIS time dictates.

    (I have to also disagree with Christian marriage being compared Sharia law sans the burka.)

    I submit to my husband because I believe that’s what my God has told me to do. My husband loves me and does not take advantage of my submission. This Christian model is working out great for us. Just had our 20 yr. anniversary. And our sex life is kickin’.

  33. Fourmyle says

    “Back around the time of Jesus, marriage was a very one-sided arrangement in favor of men.”

    This is where you went wrong. That arrangement was not “in favor of men”. Men v. Women has nothing to do with it. It was a system in favor of monogamy, and certainty of paternity.

    Remember, the ideal arrangement for men isn’t the Jesus Era marriage. It’s having a harem of young virgins and no competing males trying to steal them or impregnate them on the sly (which is a fantasy for anyone not an Arab Sheikh). Just like the ideal arrangement for a female is the richest, sexiest, most physically dangerous man in the Kingdom falling hopelessly in love with her, impregnating her a lot, and never cheating on her or taking a younger wife/mistress after 15 years (which is a fantasy outside of Disney movies).

    Human mating strategy (as you know) is about having a primary sexual partner and each of them wanting to cheat without getting caught or suffering penalties. Human societies vary in how much cheating they allow. The Jesus Era marriage was strongly anti-cheating for both men and women. The current American society downright empowers cheating and unwed childbearing, to the point where the weakest parts of our society don’t even have the concept of marriage any more. Women just jockey to get impregnated by the biggest thugs they can find, and men avoid jobs (the income from which can be taken for child payments) while trying to get as many ho-notches as they can rack up.

    The Jesus Era marriage laws were pro-women because men committed resources to their children. But it was anti-women because they couldn’t get pregnant on the sly if someone sexier who wandered by.

    The Jesus Era marriage was pro-man because he knew the kids of his marriage were his and couldn’t be taken from him, so he worked hard for them. But it was anti-man because he was limited to the fecundity of a single woman.

    Mostly the Jesus Era marriage was pro-Beta male because in the Modern Era, Beta Males can’t get any action. Alpha Males do better in the Modern Era as long as they don’t earn money. Low-rated females do better in the Modern Era because they can get impregnated by more Alpha cads and the government pays for it. The high-rated females would do better in the Jesus Era though because their beauty would allow them to attract a high-value husband, and the laws would keep him more loyal than he would otherwise be.

    As for the Churches, they’re just Beta-inducing because the feminist programming has infected them. The Christian Orthodox churches aren’t like that at all, and their practices are more similar to what the Church was like in the Jesus Era.

  34. says

    Thank you, Shanna, my wife and I are similar. 26 years married. Still have a sex life, which is one reason I come here.

    I objected to this post because it is based on a caricature.

  35. Strong Man says

    I haven’t attended enough churches to really speak very accurately on this, but in terms of general, broad assumptions, with lots of innacuracies, I believe this caricature is a decent guide.

    The bible actually has plenty of alpha examples, including Jesus as a very bold, mission driven person willing to publicly criticize authorities and make a whip to drive out a key form of income for the very intimidating powers at the temple. But I do feel much teaching about marriage I read about is speaking as though its addressing the situation that existed at least 50 years ago when men were at least manly, divorce and premarital sex was at least less common and less socially acceptable.

    If you bring your own alpha to the table, this is helpful in church and at home.

    Also, in my Mormon faith, most members are now outside the US, with a very large population in south America, where more traditional gender roles are still more socially accepted. Think salsa dancing and paso do le. Leaders addressing global issues feel the need to be a bit more careful about supporting men who are already respected in families.

    That is no longer the case in the US and western Europe.

  36. says

    There seems to be some confusion in this discussion. Let me at least agree that I suspect most priests and ministers are addressing a situation that no longer exists. The problem today is hardly too-alpha husbands. And yet that seems to be what all the sermons are about.

    CS Lewis was good on this. He said it was a trick of the Devil to have society morally concerned about the least of its problems while ignoring the worst. Preachers preaching against abusive husbands are living in a (largely imaginary) past. Frankly I suspect they also lack the balls to, say, tell women to stop nagging their husbands. That would really require courage.

    It will be interesting to see if the Anglosphere is affected by outside attitudes or the rest of the world falls in line with Anglosphere attitudes. I get the feeling that, where it can, Western feminism is trying to introduce its ideas into the Third World, although it is wary of trying too hard in Muslim nations.

    I have to say, as an outsider, that American men seem to have fallen very far, very fast, in status. It has all happened within my lifetime too. I am about to turn 57.

  37. Gardenoflove says

    A number of commenters have mentioned nagging women being a serious negative. I would like the men or maybe Athol to address what that means. Is it repeat requests,tone of voice,demanding? I am even wondering if men can be accused of the same behavior when it comes to things they want from their wives (lose weight,more sex,clean house,etc.). Do the husbands repeat requests,raise their voice and get demanding?
    It can be confusing when you ask several times,desist from more asking and then an irritated husband asks why: you didn’t remind him, why you are frustrated and acts as if he never heard you the several times he was asked. These “asking matters” can be things that it is easier to drop and not be accused of nagging. One may not wish to drop them but the dilemma is that one is uncertain whether the husband is refusing or irritated or negligent. A man can even get angry and accuse her of nagging if she tries to figure out what is going on .There can also be serious marriage matters that should be addressed and are repeatedly being ignored. This can give a woman (or man) a case of angry and resentful feelings that come out in the tone of voice.
    It seems to be a passive power play on the man’s part to ignore requests (instead of saying straight out that he doesn’t want to do that ), act unaware of what the wife is saying repeatedly and if her tone goes up in a final frustration, focus on that in itself, ignoring the original request. Throw in calling her or even privately assessing her a shrew,or a nag or say “you are acting just like my mother” and the power play is complete.
    Nothing has been done or addressed on his part and she is now dismissed as a nag that should not be attended to.
    Ummm,why not directly address what is being said? Break that nagging wife habit. State what you will not do or if you plan on following through,give a rough idea of when or how,etc. If she continues,repeat what you have said and disengage. Then follow through and point it out. If it is a serious marriage matter figure out what she wants by asking some questions and then make sure you heard her correctly. If you are not sure if you agree with what she says needs to be done or what you want to do or not do tell her directly and set a time you will get back to her. Then do it. If she starts to bring it up before the time set is up, remind her of the time you set up and disengage calmly. Then follow through.

  38. says


    When something has a special name and everybody knows what it means, it probably is a real problem.

    I would define nagging as the power play. My wife rarely does it. When she does, I tell her not to. That seems to work. Problem solved.

    Try to think of it like this. Your priorities may not be his.

    My wife has lost weight, not so much because of any nagging on my part, but because she wants to, to please me. That gave it priority in her mind.

    Does any of this help?

  39. gardenoflove says

    Yes,Mr.Collard I agree nagging is a real problem and is not an effective way for a woman or man to communicate. I do believe however, that it can be noticed by the husband and greatly reduced by his initial response. If his priority is not the same as his wife’s he should say so. If he is not going to do something at all, wants to handle things differently or needs to delay for some reason,he should say so.
    The husband does have the power to stop this cycle but for various reasons, (usually unknown to the wife and frustrating her more), he just passively doesn’t respond.
    Just telling a wife not to nag is one way to respond and in your home it stops it. However, it doesn’t really tackle what is going on behind the nagging. Women and men will do things with and without nagging behind it for their own reasons. If a husband or wife responds to nagging by doing the thing nagged about then they obviously reinforce the nagging and perhaps even agree with the nagging focus.

    There still doesn’t seem to be clarity on what constitutes nagging and I don’t agree that it is exclusive to women. If nagging behaviors are exclusive to women it could be men do the same behaviors but classify it differently (such as being repeatedly assertive,perhaps loudly, for something that is important to him). This links into my other belief that the “shit test” is not exclusive to women. For passive aggressive men it may be the behavior du jour. Here, I am not talking about a woman who has mental problems and is irrational frequently, but tests that have more behind them than meets the eye. Men absolutely do this,too.

    I have posed the question before,wondering if it is possible that a husband may define a “shit test” too frequently or say a woman is “crazy” if something is bothering her that he simply can’t understand,can’t deal with or her response to a problem is vastly different than his (usually more emotional). The response to her “shit test” can be pretty harsh and can again shut down any clearing up of what is really going on. I am not suggesting a man become her analyst but a conversation without labels such as “nagging” or “shit test” may be in order.

  40. says

    gardenoflove, I shall have to think about what you have said.

    Nagging is a gendered word, as they say. It is presumably not exclusive to women, but it is certainly associated with women. I could be flippant, and say you are doing it now, but that would be unfair, because you seem a thoughtful woman.

    Naming is important, because it helps make sense of otherwise random behaviour. Since I learned to look for the “shit test”, I have found it does explain an awful lot of my wife’s otherwise inexplicable behaviour. But, yes, it can be overdiagnosed. Sometimes women complain for no good reason; sometimes for a good reason. The art is in telling the difference.

    I personally don’t respond to a shit test by yelling and carrying on. The best response seems to be silence. I suppose you might then say, well, precisely, men ignore women’s legitimate complaints and entreaties. Maybe men 1) feel too tired to engage at the time, 2) are still thinking about it, 3) know they will not win a verbal exchange, 4) are being deliberately irritating, 5) want to move at their own pace, to “maintain frame”.

    I don’t know the final answer. I shall have to “enquire of myself”, as a Greek philosopher used to say.

  41. SMH says

    Is it me or do “christians” attack the messenger when they do not like or disagree with the message, or feel the messenger has no standing because messenger does not subscribe to their beliefs? Even when independent, substantiated, data and other facts corroborate the statements the messenger is bringing.

    It is puzzling why “christians”are so angry at the concept of atheism and atheists – if as “christians” believe God is all knowing, powerful etc. – What others think of changes none of those attributes assigned to God. Just because a person or group of people do not believe in a concept does not make a concept less valid – the concept remains unchanged and it’s integrity remains.

    Nagging may be a gendered word but it is a gender neutral action engaged in by both genders. I define nagging is when one party has an agenda and is determined to push that agenda on another party exclusive of the other parties point of view, needs and or wants and the nagging party does not even acknowledge the existence of the other parties view, position or motive. Bottom line if I ask someone to do something and they do not want to do it – then speak up own your perspective and then move forward. Silence equals concurrence unless otherwise indicated.

    Many modern churches and “religious” organizations held dear by “christians” do appear based on personal experience want men to think, relate, and respond in terms of actions and reactions in the same manner that women do. Fact is men and women are different and react differently – neither is better or worse but each is unique. Many churches as men to view things from their wives perspective; but do not ask women to see things from the perspective of the man and effectively adopt a feminine – female centric perspective. Excellent post

  42. PocketAces says


    First, three Universal Truths:

    1. Guys forget.
    2. Guys don’t like to be reminded.
    3. Nothing is ever as easy as you think it is.

    Given these universal truths, I will define nagging as:

    a) Reminding your husband of what he has forgotten (or decided not ) to do for you. (UT1 & UT2)
    b) Inquiring on when something will be finished with any frequency. (See Universal Truth 3)
    c) Being overly burdensome about things that really don’t matter. (Neither me nor the wife make the bed. Alert the

    Given this, the only way to win the nagging game is to not play. I REALLY like lists, I doubt I would ever get anything done without them. At any point in time, I have 10-20 things on my home list. I’ll prioritize 2-3 of them for immediate (over the next week) work. I choose what is high priority and knock it out when I can. Lots of times there are setbacks, stuff needs to be ordered, errands need to be run, etc (See Universal Truth #3), so the top 2-3 can change and may have to wait on external factors. I call it a victory if I knock out one thing or more a week (my list isn’t usually piddly stuff like “take out trash” more like “fix broken closet door” or “mount ceiling fan”)

    If it’s on my list, I’ll accept no nagging about it. If it’s not on my list, I’ll consider it for inclusion. Decisions are pretty much final. If I have no intention of doing it, it doesn’t go on the list. When the list fills up, the wife has a way of not asking for more. Probably because I’ll have a snarky answer for her like “Sure, I’ll get to that right away, I’ll just throw away this list right here, ok?”

    It’s both a matter or training and trust. If things are getting crossed out on my list, no one has any reason to say anything.

    I guess that’s a really long way of saying that there are better strategies to getting what you want than asking incessantly and whining about it.

    I also have a list for my wife. She doesn’t like it much, but she doesn’t like being nagged either.

  43. Abby says

    I don’t have a quibble with Athol’s description of mainline feminized Christianity – as far as I can tell, he’s correct on that account. There are smaller orthodox congregations that are considerably less feminized and do emphasize male leadership, although in a different (and perhaps less effective) way than Game advocates. I think that many people simply don’t even recognize the extent to which our society has become feminized, because it’s so ubiquitous, and because formal education is still brainwashing women into the victim role, and men into the “oppressor” role.

    The one quibble I do have is with the characterization of women’s place in society in the Greco-Roman culture of the NT. Athol’s characterization comes right out of Victorian England and modern Afghanistan, etc. – not ancient history. Within the Roman empire, women did indeed own property, run businesses, and have the right to divorce their husbands. While in outlying parts of the empire, conquered tribal people undoubtedly did stone women for adultery, the same can be said for some group of people in every century right up until our own day – and the ancient Israeli law called for the execution of both parties to adultery, not just the woman. While today women in the West undoubtedly have more freedom and cultural power than ever, and many women in the Middle East are as oppressed as women have ever been, Athol’s characterization of the culture of the ancient world at the time of Paul’s writing is a modern caricature rather than an accurate historical analysis.

    That’s not to say that everything he wrote about the modern day isn’t spot-on, because it is. ;)

  44. Pegala says

    Athol, you say:

    “I’m an atheist because I think there is no God. I can very much assure people that I was a very intent and eager Christian – full time Christian job, short term missions, preaching and on one occassion leading a retreat weekend. Leaving the faith was a very difficult and painful decision, but an honest one.”

    Sounds like you took the red pill on religion.

  45. NG says

    @ PocketAces
    First, three Universal Truths: (MODIFIED)
    1. Guys forget. (Guys forget things that they don’t consider important to themselves or they are not going to benefit from and it doesn’t directly inconvenience them terribly)
    2. Guys don’t like to be reminded. (See Mod UT1)
    3. Nothing is ever as easy as you think it is. (Depends, who is going to derive the most benefit from what gets done?)

  46. NG says

    My last relationship really cemented those facts for me. I have had quite a few scenarios that went something like this:
    Me: Pick up Ex-Bf’s calls (b4 he was an ex) after ignoring him for 2 weeks.
    Him: Why I’m ignoring him?
    Me: If you don’t know why, then I can’t explain it to you?
    Him: long speech, trying to make it seem like I’m the one not acting right, blahblahblah…..
    Me: Silent (Not engaging)
    Him: Is it because I haven’t done xyz that you asked? (Obviously he didn’t forget). Bunch of excuses, he still hadn’t done it.

    Now from the time I asked to this scene, it was about 5 weeks. I had reminded him twice in the 3 week period before ignoring him. The second time I reminded him, he acted like I was bugging/nagging him. So I didn’t bother asking him again and found someone else to help me.
    My Ex, prior to me asking him for this favor, has requested help from me 3 times. Each time I did what he asked with a week and he definitely would follow up and remind me. So why should my request be handled differently than how he expected his to be handled?
    I have a lot of male family members, so the dynamics I have had with them and also my personal romantic and platonic relationships with men makes those modifications necessary.

    My friend and her husband right how are dealing with a flooded kitchen area because her husband was taking his sweet time to fix the leakage she had pointed out a few weeks ago. They got into big argument a week before the flooding happened. Of course he pulled the nagging card on her. She was upset because he was able to find time to fix the bicycle he used for training and a non working big flat screen he got at a garage sale (he is really good at fixing stuff), but couldn’t find time to fix or find out about the leakage in the kitchen. I told her it wasn’t urgent to him because he hardly uses the kitchen. Also, since she had found a temporary stop-gap measure to deal with the issue at the time, he wasn’t the one being inconvenienced.

    These examples are just to reiterate Garden of Love’s point, about how some men’s actions/attitude to request can lead to what they call nagging. I personally have a two reminder rule. After an original request is made, I’ll only remind someone twice. If after a second reminder of the request there is no progress being made at a reasonable time, then I’ll just find someone to help me, if I can’t do it myself. If it seems like a pattern with that particular person, then I stop asking them for help and I also won’t waste my energy helping them.

  47. Louise says

    I don’t know why Athol thinks marriage in Biblical times was so bad. If you look at the description of the Virtuous Wife in Proverbs Chapter 31, you will see that she is praised for being an efficient household manager, a skilled craftswoman, and a good businesswoman. A veritable Superwoman in fact. I thought that’s what Mr Kay thought wives should be like.

  48. alan says

    Interesting view point but I don’t think it matches up to ancient history nor scripture, as others have shown. But you are dead on that the modern church is thoroughly ‘betaized’.

    What has happened is the modern church has forsaken Christ as its true leader and head and is instead ruled by the culture (world), which is feminist. Women submitting to their husbands as to Christ (that is completely) would not go over well in most churches. And the quickest way for a women to draw scorn and hate from so called Christians is to wear a covering. Most churches are run behind the scenes by women, even if it is men in all the leadership positions. Preachers often run in fear of the women in the pews. Most so called Christian radio appeals to women and women only. And a true Alpha man will get run out of most churches, he won’t be tolerated. Well, at least in churches where ones participation exceeds warming the pew once a week.

  49. Harold Y says

    i agree with Athol that the modern church is betaizing men, but its entirely because of women and feminism, and men not taking a stand against it. there are pastors and ministers that get fired by their congregation every year for giving the “women, submit to your husbands” speech. the women lash out and their husbands say nothing as he is driven out. the new guy then attacks men for not putting their wives on a pedestal. more marriages are broken, men start leaving, and the congregation becomes more women-centric to reflect the changing demographics. it becomes a vicious cycle that drives men away.

    however, i disagree that today the legal system has now been equalized from the NT times. the fact is, the pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. just look in the case of pregnancies. a woman can have an abortion without consulting the father. she can give up the baby for adoption (out of spite), again, without anything the father can do about it, even if hes willing to raise it alone. and she can decide to have the baby, and then proceed to extract 18-21 years of child support from the man, even if paternity tests prove him not the father. even if the father is a young boy who was raped. even if the mother took a used condom and impregnated herself with a turkey baster. and if hes too poor to keep up the payments, hes sent off to prison, even though debtors prison is supposed to be illegal.

    and i dont think i need to elaborate on how anti-male the family court system in division of equity and child custody. even if pre-nups were signed, unless youre rich, theyll just strike it down and ignore it. and the blatant false rape accusations that are increasing annually, especially in colleges where feminism runs rampant. Duke lacrosse and the Hosftra cases were two of the most famous.

    marriage has become a risky proposition that outweighs any possible rewards, unless children are desired. then it becomes necessary or else one risks adoption (as i explained above). outside of marriage, men lack fathers rights.

    i dont see anything changing either, despite how serious everything is. modern liberalism has always been an “us versus them” ideology, and men are the enemy. too many people benefit from the current paradigm for things to ever change.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *