Category Archives: News

What does it mean for a woman to respect a man?

My favorite painting:
My favorite painting: “Godspeed” by Edmund Blair Leighton, 1900

Matt Walsh writes a popular blog where he sometimes talks about male-female relationships. I got the impression that he was writing too much about how to blame men, and not enough about the policies and practices that provide incentives for men to underperform, e.g. – mostly female teachers, unfair divorce laws, stimulus spending geared towards women, etc. So imagine my surprise when I came across this article about men and their need for respect.

Matt is concerned that men are hearing too many negative messages in the culture, and not getting enough respect for what they do right.

He writes:

These cultural messages aren’t harmful because they hurt my manly feelings; they’re harmful because of what they do to young girls. Society tells our daughters that men are boorish dolts who need to be herded like goats and lectured like school boys. Then they grow up and enter into marriage wholly unprepared and unwilling to accept the Biblical notion that “wives should submit to their husbands” because “the husband is the head of the wife.” [Ephesians 5]

It is a fatal problem, because the one thing that is consistently withheld from men and husbands — respect — is the one thing we need the most.

Yes, need. We need respect, and that need is so deeply ingrained that a marriage cannot possibly survive if the man is deprived of it.

Often, people will say that a husband should only be respected if he “earns” it. This attitude is precisely the problem. A wife ought to respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he ought to love and honor her because she is his wife. Your husband might “deserve” it when you mock him, berate him, belittle him, and nag him, but you don’t marry someone in order to give them what they deserve. In marriage, you give them what you’ve promised them, even when they aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.

OK really, one last quote from Matt:

Respect is our language. If it isn’t said with respect, we can’t hear it. This is why nagging is ineffective and self defeating. This is why statements made in sarcastic tones, or with rolling eyes, will never be received well. We have a filter in our brains, and a statement made in disrespect will be filtered out like the poison it is.

Men are notoriously reluctant to share feelings or display vulnerability. Many times, we keep those inner thoughts locked away — our feelings guarded and hidden — because we know we are not respected. A man will never be vulnerable to someone who doesn’t respect him. Never.

A man isn’t satisfied or content if he isn’t respected. If he can’t find respect where he is, he will seek it somewhere else. This can have disastrous implications for a relationship, but it applies in other areas of life as well. A man is much more likely to stay in a low paying job, a physically demanding job, a dangerous job, or a tedious job, than a job where he isn’t respected.

I’m only emphasizing this because I think it might actually be news to some people. Society does not permit men to be vocal about their need for respect, so the need is often ignored.

What I’ve found in speaking to women about this is that all the married and divorced women know about this need that men have. And by and large, they agree with it, too. But that is much rarer among single women, which is why men need to be ready to explain their needs and feelings. And women need to allow them to do that and then provide what men need in order to keep them performing.

Let’s take a quick look at the Bible, because that’s always a good thing to do when you want the truth about these things.

Ephesians 5:22-33:

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

23 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.

24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

27 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.

28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

30 because we are members of His body.

31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

Some women get scared by that, but they shouldn’t be, because women get to pick their husbands, so just pick someone whose leadership you actually respect. Believe it or not, it is actually very comforting to co-operate with someone who knows what he is doing, and has demonstrated that through his past decisions.

And now for my opinion about this topic.

To start, remember that men are supposed to be good at the following roles:

  • protecting
  • providing
  • moral leader
  • spiritual leader

If a woman sees a man – any man – working away at these tasks so that he can solve her problems with something more than confident promises about the future, that’s the time to practice respecting him. All men need to be recognized and encouraged in these areas, by all woman who care that men are masculine.

When I think of protecting, there is obviously the physical protection, but there is also the protection from lies and bad decisions. For protection, what I end up doing most is analyzing decisions for women and then giving my recommendation. I have 12 young people I mentor, men and women, who are in undergraduate or graduate school. My job is to make sure that they are not studying garbage subjects, and not wasting their summers. I am proud to say that the 7 women I advise are all in STEM areas, and that took some convincing. Why is this protection? Because women need to not starve, and they need to not feel pressured to settle for a guy because they can’t be financially independent by themselves. I am not a feminist, but I do think that women make better wives when they study hard subjects and do hard jobs. It shapes their character so that they are easier to reason with, less fun-focused, and more able to perform hard work without complaint. I also advise women not to waste money of pursuing fun and thrills when they are young, and instead advise them to save and invest it early. One of the young ladies I mentor just finished her BS in computer science, and just finished her first year of an MS in computer science, worked as a TA and in the summers as a software tester, just finished an internship with a great software company for the summer, and she has an account with Fidelity, just like me.

When I think of providing, I think of the man’s ability to work for money. It starts in high school, in the summers or evenings and goes on right to retirement. I did a summer internship with a huge telecom firm when I was in my sophomore year of high school, so it is possible. A man should not rely on others for money, he needs to be independent. A man should not find paid work “boring” and “meaningless”. In fact, part of what it means to be a man is to do things that you don’t feel like doing, so that you can provide for others. A man does not spend his money on alcohol or travel or other entertainments. He will have plenty to spend it on when he gets older – his family or maybe charity. A man buys things for others that will help them achieve goals – solving problems for others with his earned income. For example, if a woman has surgery on both of her hands, and cannot lug the vacuum up and down the stairs to clean up her cat’s fur, then the man buys her a corded hand vacuum, which is much lighter for her to use every day, (he knows she has OCD and wants everything clean). Money makes a woman’s life easier, freeing her up to do more important things. It’s important for a man to get started early earning money, because earnings can be invested to produce a return. A man’s confidence about the future has no cash value. A woman’s feelings about a man’s potential future earnings has no cash value. Cash has cash value. There is no such thing as assumed future income, there is only a resume, which predicts future earned income based on the reality of past earned income.

A good moral leader is not just good at being moral and spiritual himself, but of convincing others to be moral and spiritual. He is able to present his views on moral issues in a convincing way, especially to non-Christians. He studies philosophy (in his spare time! not as a job because it does not pay!) and is aware of research that helps him to make his point about topics like abortion and marriage. He has an interest in current events and politics, and is able to talk about legislation, policies and court cases related to his worldview. He is able to solve problems that could impact a person’s ability to be moral or spiritual in the future. For example, consider that some people really do lose their faith when experiencing evil and suffering. A good spiritual leader advises a woman to not make plans that are likely to fail, so that she will never blame God for her own poor decisions. A good moral leader convinces a woman to be serious about marriage early, so that she is not tempted to become a single mother by choice later. Those last two cases are cases I actually had to face, and I won the first one (she dumped a complete loser of a man and married a really great one), and lost the second (she became a single mother by choice and had a fatherless son). But the point is that there is more to being a moral leader than reciting moral rules. And there is more to being a spiritual leader than reciting Bible verses. A good leader proves he can lead by pushing the people he leads into real world achievements.

These are the things that a good woman looks for in a man, and when she finds them, she accords a man respect in those areas.

New study: fathers play an important role in child development

A family praying and reading the Bible
A family praying and reading the Bible

Science Daily reports:

Fathers play a surprisingly large role in their children’s development, from language and cognitive growth in toddlerhood to social skills in fifth grade, according to new findings from Michigan State University scholars.

The research provides some of the most conclusive evidence to date of fathers’ importance to children’s outcomes and reinforces the idea that early childhood programs such as Head Start should focus on the whole family, including mother and father alike. The findings are published online in two academic journals, Early Childhood Research Quarterly and Infant and Child Development.

[…]The study found that fathers’ parenting-related stress had a harmful effect on their children’s cognitive and language development when the children were 2 to 3 years old, even when the mothers’ influences were taken into account. This impact varied by gender; fathers’ influence, for example, had a larger effect on boys’ language than girls’ language.

Another key finding: Fathers’ and mothers’ mental health had a similarly significant effect on behavior problems among toddlers. Further, fathers’ mental health had a long-term impact, leading to differences in children’s social skills (such as self-control and cooperation) when the children reached fifth grade. In fact, fathers’ depression symptoms when children were toddlers were more influential on children’s later social skills than were mothers’ symptoms.

In sum, the findings contribute to the small but growing collection of research affirming the effects of fathers’ characteristics and father-child relationship qualities on children’s social development, rather than just the fathers’ residence in the home or presence in the child’s life, according to the paper published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly.

What’s the purpose of this? Well, if you’re watching the Democrat convention, you know that Democrats are great believers in taxing working families, and then giving money to women who have children outside of marriage. In fact, government policy even penalizes married couples, the so-called “marriage penalty”. But this study clearly shows that we need to stop  paying women to have fatherless children. What good does it do to talk about helping children, when you pay women to inflict fatherlessness on children? It makes no sense, and it’s not compassionate to the children.

We ought to be promoting marriage with our tax policy, not trying to make the government a substitute for a husband.

Good news: UK Supreme Court rules against Scotland’s fascist Named Person scheme

One of the first "named persons" fired for sex crime with child
One of the first “named persons” fired for sex crime with child

Dina tweeted this article from the UK Daily Mail about that the so-called Named Person policy, which appoints a worker from the secular socialist government to each child born in Scotland, who will then follow that child through their childhood and interfere with the parent-child relationship.

Read it:

Judges have blocked Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial law to appoint a named person for every child in Scotland, blasting the scheme as ‘totalitarian’.

The flagship policy, introduced by the SNP administration at Holyrood, set out to appoint a single point of contact, such as a teacher or health visitor, to look out for the welfare of children under 18.

Scottish courts had dismissed attempts by Christian campaigners to block the legislation but today five Supreme Court justices heard an appeal and ruled the measures were ‘incompatible’ with European human rights laws because of the requirement to share private family data. 

The court ruled that the current drafting of the legislation risked breaching important regulations protecting privacy and confidentiality and could result in disproportionate interference with the right to a family and private life. 

It is a humiliating blow for the SNP Government in Edinburgh but defiant Scottish ministers insist they will not scrap the scheme despite today’s ruling by the Supreme Court in London – the UK’s highest court.

Deputy First Minister John Swinney vowed to implement the measure nationally once changes have been made to comply with the High Court’s ruling.

[…]Scottish government ministers had planned to roll out the named person scheme across Scotland in just over a month’s time.

Under the scheme the named person will be required to exercise statutory functions, including providing advice, information or support where appropriate to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person.

There is no opt-out for parents from the Named Person policy.  And one of the first named person has already been found guilty of a vile sex crime. What would you expect when you give liberal government workers access to children who are not their own?

The Named Person scheme is an obvious way for the secular left to push their values: abortion, gay marriage, socialism, pacifism, etc. onto children with impunity. This is not surprising since people on the secular left often view parental authority as harmful to children. One can easily imagine scenarios where Christian parents try to teach their children beliefs and moral behaviors that are incompatible with the far-left Scottish government.

I am always taken aback by the great confidence that teachers and social workers have in their desire to impose their radically leftist, anti-family views on families. These bureaucracies tend to be dominated by feminists who have great confidence in their wisdom to impose their views on men. They think that they know how to raise children better than the taxpaying families who pay their salaries.

The only way out of this mess is to cut, cut, cut the size of government, and force the government workers out into the competitive private sector, where the needs of the customers actually matter. I will also say this – if you wonder why men withdraw from wanting to get married and start families, it is because while men relish the idea of starting their own little home where they are the leaders, they have absolutely no interest in entering those arrangements if they are going to be meddled with and bullied by feminist government workers. Men marry to lead, not to be thrown in jail by fascistic feminist bureaucrats.

What’s behind the spike in terrorist attacks in Europe?

Muslim populations in Europe
Muslim populations in Europe

Dina tweeted this article from the UK Spectator about the recent spike in terrorist attacks in Europe.

It says:

It is now a fortnight since Mohammed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ploughed a truck along the Nice seafront, killing 84 people. The following Monday Mohammed Riyad, who said he was from Afghanistan but almost certainly came from Pakistan, screamed ‘Allahu Akbar’ while hacking with an axe at his fellow passengers on a Bavarian train. The next day another Mohammed, this time Mohamed Boufarkouch, shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and stabbed a Frenchwoman and her three daughters (aged eight, 12 and 14) near Montpelier. Mixing things up a little, that Friday’s shooter in Munich was a child of Iranians called Ali David Sonboly. Skip forward a couple of days and a ‘-Syrian asylum seeker’ with a machete was hacking a pregnant woman to death in Stuttgart. The next day another ‘Syrian asylum seeker’, Mohammad Daleel, carried out a suicide bombing outside a bar in Ansbach, Bavaria. And a little over 24 hours later two men shouting the name of Isis entered a church in Rouen during Mass, took the nuns and congregation hostage and slaughtered the priest with a knife.

What is interesting is how the mainstream media reports on these attacks. Their top priority doesn’t seem to be to tell the public the truth. They seem to prefer blaming the public for provoking the innocent terrorists into performing these attacks.

Look:

Although the public know what is going on, the media seems loath to find any connection between these events. Indeed, the same papers that blame an exaggerated spike in ‘hate crime’ on everyone who voted for Brexit seem unwilling to put the blame for these real and violent attacks on the individuals carrying them out. ‘Syrian man denied asylum killed in German blast’ was the Reuters headline on the Ansbach story, neatly turning the suicide bomber into the victim and the German asylum system into the perpetrator. As Reuters went on: ‘A 27-year-old Syrian man who had been denied asylum in Germany a year ago died on Sunday when a bomb he was carrying exploded outside a music festival.’ How terrible for him to lose his bomb in such a way.

The more complex story of the Munich shooter allowed everyone to double-down on their favourite explanations for violence. Inadequate welfare provisions, unsuitable town-planning and bullying were all wheeled out to explain why Ali David Sonboly started shooting in a McDonalds. Others were a little too keen to claim him as an Isis warrior, when it seems he wasn’t. The BBC got around the problem by excising the ‘Ali’ and all reports of his religion. Instead, speculation about the shooting happening on the fifth anniversary of Anders Breivik’s terrorist assault in Norway meant that every-one could ignore the Muslim eyewitness who heard Sonboly shout ‘Allahu Akbar’ and headline on Breivik instead. Meaning that in Europe in 2016 a child of Iranian parents can be portrayed as a white supremacist, while no amount of Mohameds shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ can be said to have any connection to Islam.

Somehow, the mainstream media has decided that radicalized Muslims who commit terrorist attacks must be protected from public disapproval. Their job isn’t to tell the truth, it’s to try to make people believe things that the mainstream media wants them to believe.

The real question for us is this. If the leaders of the government take this attitude, and continue to mass import unskilled immigrants from Muslim countries, then can we at last blame them for getting innocent taxpayers killed? It seems to me that the politicians who cover for the Islamic terrorists are putting us all at risk.

86-year-old Catholic priest murdered by Islamic State terrorist in northern France

Democrats think that the real threat to America is not radical Islamic terrorism
Democrats think that the real threat to America is not radical Islamic terrorism

The Stream reports on a horrific story from France:

A priest was killed in a hostage situation at a Catholic church in Normandy, France on Tuesday. The terrorist attack, which seriously wounded at least one other person, was done in the name of ISIS, according to French President Francois Hollande.

The two men cut 84-year-old Rev. Jacques Hamel’s throat after shouting “Daesh,” another name for ISIS. The Telegraph reported that five people were taken hostage during morning Mass in the town of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray. Two churchgoers and two nuns were taken hostage and one is seriously wounded.

Police shot the two men as they left the building, according to The Wall Street Journal. The Islamic State said the attack was made by two of its “soldiers.” Daily Express reported that one of the attackers was a convicted terrorist known to French authorities. The man was required to wear an electronic bracelet.

Hollande called the attack a “cowardly assassination,” CNN reported. “Daesh has declared war on us,” Hollande said. “We have to win that war.”

What is interesting about this is that it is following a continuous stream of attacks by Islamic terrorists and refugees in various countries. The Democrat National Convention is going on right now, maybe they are talking about the threat of radical Islam?

The Daily Wire can answer that:

While Democrats spent the night jabbering about abortion and $15 minimum wage and climate change, jihadists stormed a church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray in Normandy, France, and proceeded to behead an 86-year-old priest while shouting “Jesus Lives!”

Just joking. They were yelling “Allahu Akhbar.” But you guessed that already.

This is the fifth jihadist attack in Europe in 11 days.

So, how many times did Democrats mention ISIS last night and yesterday?

Zero.

That’s right – 61 speakers, zero mentions of ISIS. But the Democrats did find time to put an illegal immigrant on stage, as well as an irritating comedic actress who uses her spare time auctioning sanitary napkins. They found time to take down “offensive” Mississippi state flags and wave Palestinian ones on the floor of the convention. They found time for another actress who claimed that the “border crossed” her family, and a video from J.J. Abrams about that Queen of Mystery and Light, Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats know their priorities. And defeating ISIS isn’t one of them.

[…]Republicans worry about terrorism and crime, Democrats worry about whether men who think they’re women can go pee-pee next to the ladies.

If you’re watching the coverage of the Democrat convention, the media is busy fawning over the speeches. But the speeches don’t address any of the real problems that we are facing. It’s just the liberal elites preening themselves about how generous they are with other people’s money. The real problems like crime and terrorism are completely ignored. It takes a certain amount of intellectual capacity to be able to apprehend reality as it is in order to do a job. Democrats confuse their own felt needs with reality, and so prefer an illusion in which they can congratulate themselves for being better than others without having to actually solve any real problems by their own effort. Calling evil “good” feels good to a Democrat, it wins applause for Democrats. Democrats think: “who cares if a few innocent people have to suffer or die?” That’s how Democrats think.