BACK THE FUCK OFF
or, “It’s ‘MGTOW,’ not ‘MGMOW (Men Going My Own Way)’”
[credit: Shutterstock]
[Warning: this essay reflects my Judeo-Christian reverence for the Holy Bible and its morality, but it’s not intended to either exclude or offend non-Christians.]
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” [Ephesians 5:22-27, New American Standard Bible (1977 or 1995)]
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” [Eph. 5:22-27, Authorized King James Version]
“Let the wives be subject to their own husbands, as to the Lord, for the husband is head of the wife even as Christ is Head of the ecclesia, and He is the Savior of the body. Nevertheless, as the ecclesia is subject to Christ, thus are the wives also to their husbands in everything. Husbands, be loving your wives according as Christ also loves the ecclesia, and gives Himself up for its sake, that He should be hallowing it, cleansing it in the bath of the water (with His declaration), that He should be presenting to Himself a glorious ecclesia, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that it may be holy and flawless.” [Eph. 5:22-27, Concordant Literal New Testament]
[credit: thepleasantpersonality.com]
“The Head of every man is Christ, yet the head of the woman is the man, yet the Head of Christ is God.” [I Corinthians 11:3, CLNT]
“The Christ (aka ‘Anointing’ or ‘Anointed One’) is the Source, or Head, of every adult male; in turn the adult male the source, or head, of woman; and yet God is the Source of the Christ, or the Head of the Anointed One.” [I Cor. 11:3, Jonathan Mitchell’s expanded, amplified, multiple-renderings New Testament]
“The head of every man is Anointing; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Anointing is Placer.” [I. Cor. 11:3, Etymological New Testament: An Ultra Literal Translation]
Later in I Corinthians 11:8-9:
“Man does not originate from woman, but woman from man [referring to Genesis 2:21-23], for indeed man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. [referring to Gen. 2:18]” [Amplified Bible]
“Man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” [New International Version]
“It was the woman who was made from a man, and not the man who was made from a woman. He wasn't created for her. She was created for him.” [Contemporary English Version]
[credit: istockphoto.com]
Most translators have been squeamishly in lock-step, but God didn’t remove a rib from Adam. The polite translation would have been ‘chamber,’ but the literal translation from the Hebrew in Genesis 2:21 was that God opened Adam and removed his female ‘angulars’ (a euphemism in those days for female sex organs: uterus, cervix, ovaries, fallopian tubes, vagina, labia and clitoris) – yes, prior to that, Adam had originally been an hermaphrodite.
[image: mosaic from the Cathedral of Monreale, Sicily]
“And Yahweh Elohim said: It is not good for the human to be alone by himself. I shall make for him a helper as his complement. . . . Then Yahweh Elohim caused a stupor to fall on the human. While he was sleeping, He took one of his angular organs and closed up the flesh over its place. Yahweh Elohim built the angular organ that He had taken from the human into a woman and brought her to the human. The human said: ‘This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called woman, for this was taken from her man.” [Genesis 2:18, 21-23, Concordant Version of the Old Testament]
In Genesis 3, Eve disobeyed God’s one prohibition, then convinced Adam to follow suit. After being confronted by God, Adam first attempted to weasel out of his transgression, but God swiftly declared consequences that were most severe for the man. Why? Because God had already established that Adam was the head of Eve – and therefore was held more accountable. But those consequences only solidified God’s original Design and Intention for human beings (which, by the way, also just happens to align with biology, physiology and plain common sense, in case, dear reader, all this God talk is making you uncomfortable): that the purpose of men is to display stewardship over not only the Earth but all its creatures (including women and children); the purpose of woman is to be a support system, a helper, to the man; and their joint purpose is to be fruitful and multiply.
Genesis 3:16: “By your husband is your restoration. And he shall rule over you.”
Genesis 3:19: “By the sweat of your brow shall you eat your bread, until you return to the ground.”
God created hardship and headship for man – and dependency and submission for women, consistent with the differences inherent in their differing genetic and hormonal makeups.
Notice something significant in all of the above: what two concepts are absent in the Word of God when it comes to men and women?
· ‘Mutual submission’ is not a thing; and
· There is also no such thing as men having authority over each other, especially in regard to male-female relationships.
In between Genesis and the writings of the Apostle Paul, God introduced the Ten Commandments, to this day the most-often-referenced moral foundation for the human race. But they’re not rules that authorize men to remove autonomy from other men; they are commandments from our Creator, and failure to abide by them is disobedience to the Most High Power, not disobedience to other men.
The Hierarchy is thus clear: God:Christ:man:woman:children.
God has authority over all. Some authority He voluntarily shares.
Christ has been given delegated authority over all men, all women, all children, all pets and other animals.
Man has delegated authority over his women, children and animals.
Woman has delegated authority over her children.
[credit: scottroberts.org]
[Note that I Corinthians 11:3 does not interject priests, pastors, deacons, elders, bishops or the Virgin Mary in between Christ and His ecclesia. Christ is the only intermediary between human beings and God.]
*************
A chain of command exists, and it’s clear who reports to whom.
Therefore, it’s only rarely the case that men should be telling other men how to behave in a moral manner other than to refer to Holy Scripture for all the guidance one needs (alternatively, those of other religious moral frameworks can refer to their most revered written works – and atheists can continue to pretend that whatever happens to resonate with their latest mood is life’s highest moral authority; believe me: been there, done that). No man should become convinced that it’s his purpose on Earth to hand out commands to his fellow men except perhaps out of love to remind a brother that he might be straying into territory that will have him turning his back on God Himself. This is a life guideline that becomes increasingly essential the closer one comes to being tempted to instruct another man on how to navigate the most personal and primal aspects of his existence.
Among those most personal and primal choices are the ones men make about whether to establish permanent, committed, honor-bound relationships with women. If your brother seeks your advice, then, by all means, offer it until he indicates he’s heard enough. But it’s simply not a man’s place to offer unsolicited advice about mate selection to another man, no matter how well-meaning one is.
Furthermore, it’s in fact a feminine impulse to engage in that kind of meddling. Femininity is a laudable quality in women, but it’s not a good look on men.
Like it or not, the prohibition against meddling in another man’s private decision-making extends to the issue of whether he takes on more than one wife simultaneously. In fact, challenging a man’s God-given right to decide how many wives he has (reference: Exodus 21:10) is truly evidence that the meddling man is a slave to gynocentrism, because the Gynocracy is dominated by selfish desires of individual females to get whatever they want whenever they want it – no matter who else, including even other females, has to suffer to make it happen. And a man who stands up for a woman’s nonexistent ‘right’ to have a man she can exclusively manipulate is a special breed of White Knight.
“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”
– Martin Luther
A wife is to be consulted but not obeyed. Ultimately, every decision in a marriage is up to the man. Women have always been constitutionally incapable of effectively leading families; the exceptions only prove the rule.
The appropriate stance for a man is to stand tall among his fellow human beings and to support his fellow men in standing tall as well.
Gynocracy was invented by elite men to subjugate all other men, and men who trespass into other men’s sovereignty are foot soldiers for Gynocracy and spiritual darkness. Specifically, regarding the choice of marriage (whether that be to no woman, to one woman or to multiple women), any man who asserts moral supremacy toward another man about his choices in that matter is a traitor among men, because ultimately it’s essentially an indirect assertion that whom a man marries is up to women in general. If an independent adult man wishes to demonstrate the supreme generosity of making a woman his wife, that is his decision alone to make, because he is the only one who will have to bear the burdens of having made a sovereign decision.
[credit: biblicalfamilies.org]
Patriarchy and a man’s right to polygyny go hand in hand. Polygyny is downstream from patriarchy, but to challenge polygyny is to challenge patriarchy itself, because if a man doesn’t have sovereignty in the realm of marriage choice, then how much sovereignty could he possibly have?
[credit: istockphoto.com]
Last point: we hear a lot about simps in the ‘Manosphere.’ If you don’t know what a simp is, you can research that on your own, but it isn’t a compliment. Here’s the final set of questions for this essay:
· It’s easy enough to tag other poor suckers as simps when they make excuses for women or carry out chores for women either for approval or for the vague possibility of sexual reward – but what if there’s an even more insidious form of simpery more often exhibited by men of the Red Pill?
· What if a deeper level of simp behavior is restricted to those of us who’ve stopped drinking the Kool-Aid and have adjusted to taking a relatively-new approach to women that includes either (1) no longer pedestalizing or worshipping them, or (2) nearly avoiding them altogether?
· What if (a) taking the bull by the horns exclusively within one’s own marriage or other such relationship, or (b) becoming a MGTOW, isn’t what we’d consider 1st-degree simping, but it can still risk becoming something worse that could be called 2nd-degree simping?
· What if one of us insisting on pushing back with discouraging statements about the supposed futility of getting other men to stop being simps is itself the equivalent of simping to the simps? Isn’t that misplaced approval-seeking from those who have succumbed to resignation?
What’s the difference between caving in to women for pussy and caving in to white-knighting men who perpetuate disordered, inappropriate dominance of women over men?
When we do that, are we any better than those who promote gynocentrism no matter what the consequences are to men, children or society at large?
Do all men deserve the respect of all other men just because, well, penis? Or is it time for those of us who’ve been red-pilled to treat simps as unwitting enemies rather than as official brothers who somehow are entitled to our respect and protection just like the women who so cavalierly expect our protection and provision no matter how badly those women misbehave?
Is it maybe more appropriate to treat unrepentant male simps as traitors who make life more difficult for every man committed to putting the world back on its tracks?
And if we’re unwilling to treat lazy enemies as traitors but instead grant them the ability to thwart any effort to accomplish a reordering of society, aren’t we enabling those traitors and/or granting them some level of unearned power?
[credit: istockphoto.com]
What if, instead of taking the historically-masculine path of organizing the world for the betterment of everyone, we’re instead taking the simpy, rolling-over-and-playing-dead path of jawboning each other about the problems while effectively leaving power in the hands of those who will perpetuate those very problems?
Is consoling ourselves with statements about how most men just aren’t ready to stand up to women or to risk losing their pussy stream a smoke screen for avoiding admitting that we’re the ones who aren’t quite ready?