Archive for June, 2005


Christian Women to Avoid

On the Internet I have found several discussions on the type of women men should avoid dating or marrying. One noteworthy list of personality types to avoid can be found at BusterB’s website, for example (see part 1 and part 2). I grant that personality lists are often too generalized and probably reflect the pop psychology found on talk radio, in fashion magazines, etc. Having said that, I have decided to go against my better judgement and come up with my own list with a religious twist.

When it comes to romance, Christian men face a somewhat peculiar set of circumstances due to the dynamic of faith involved. So, here, in no particular order, is my list of Christian women one should not date or marry. Keep in mind that you may find a woman that fits more than one category. It doesn’t matter, though. Strike one and she’s out …

The Prude

This one is self-explanatory. Perhaps she is not as common as in a previous age where taboos were more strict, but she is still out there. Avoid her. If talk of marriage comes up between you and a Christian woman, you and her will eventually have to deal with the Bogeyman (SEX).

How does she see sex? Evil? Defiling? Maybe not evil or defiling, but perhaps just a means to have children? A chore? Something she does merely in exchange for favors, as if bodily contact were a form of currency? Maybe she thinks sex is no more enjoyable than eating overcooked broccoli. Maybe she thinks it ought to be that way. No matter. Exit stage left, Romeo.

Telltale signs: Has positive things to say about romance, married life, etc. but has nothing positive to say about sex in general.

Scriptures: Proverbs 5:18-19; Song of Solomon; 1 Corinthians 7:1-7


You are the stand-in to make her dreams happen. There are plenty of men she could have substituted for you, especially the ones that she always fantasizes about. It just so happens that your number was up and no one else better was available.

Ok, you are ready to provide one suburban house, two cars, and three kids, right? You know she found mention of those things right next to the verse in the Bible that says men are the “Providers.” Yep! Don’t deny her the sacraments by which she can be become one of the in-crowd at the big suburban church! What? You want her to love you for your character? Do you think it’s basically about companionship? Simpleton! Those are good things but it’s more than that, dontcha’ know. Her man must be ambitious! Must have dreams! What kind of dreams? Well, the kind that are consonant with white, middle-class, suburban values! Don’t you know she wants to be known as the wife of an affluent man who just also happens to be one of the elders of the local church?

But hey, you may actually want what she wants. Both of you are doomed to failure because your happiness is based on externals, though. You think if you check off a list of to-dos, you’ll both arrive spiritually; however, you’ll be miserable busting your tails to keep up with the Joneses at church. And then when you do “arrive,” you’ll feel empty because there is nothing left to look forward to. If you allow this woman in your life and she objectifies you as a success object, you’ll have no one but yourself to blame. Look at the old men in your congregation sitting next to their scowling, discontent, blue-haired wives. That’s your future, buddy.

Telltale signs: Confuses future tense with present tense (e.g., “I want a man who will teach our children [as if she assumes she’ll have children] …”). Also, there is a detectible change in her demeanor when you tell her your what your occupation is.

Scriptures: Luke 12:15; James 4:13-17; Hebrews 13:5

The Project

She’s made some stupid choices in her youth, especially passing up responsible (yet boring) guys like you for more exciting prospects. But now that she’s divorced, broke, has 2+ children, and/or has a body that doesn’t turn as many heads as it used to, she graciously says “hi” to you. Here’s your project, Mr. Fix-it. She has the problems; you are the solution. Make the pieces fit, if you can. Can you handle the baggage? The children? The ex-spouse? Oh, she’s “got religion,” all right. Does that mean she should get you as well? If she really likes you for who you are, why hasn’t she considered you up until now? A woman like this needs to learn to take responsibility for her own life before asking someone else to do so. If you pursue a relationship with her, do so with extreme caution.

Telltale signs: The woman in question is usually over thirty years old and often accompanied by small people that share her genes (but obviously not yours).

Scriptures: Galatians 6:7-8

The Warm-Fuzzy Pietist

She’s not deep into theology or actually figuring out what the Bible teaches. The word “exegesis” is about as meaningful to her as the word “triskaidekaphobia.” Religion is more of a “personal,” “experiential,” thing for her. Run from her. Sooner or later, she might think the Spirit led her to ignore Matthew 5:32 and dump you for the Bigger Better Deal.

Telltale signs: 1) She says, “I feel God is leading me to [do whatever seems pleasing to her at the moment] …” 2)Her eyes glaze over in Bible study. 3) She thinks you are legalistic when you draw the line in the sand against false doctrine and sin.

Scriptures: Matthew 7:21-27; James 1:22-25

The Pharisee

The extreme opposite of the Pietist. This chick can quote scriptures and actually put up an argument over doctrine. But she is backstabbing, controlling, hateful, derisive of other people’s weaknesses and struggles, and unconcerned about those less fortunate than her. Remember, even the devil can quote scriptures, and you might end up living with her.

Telltale signs: She sounds like she could written one of the articles for those “brotherhood” magazines that nobody reads except for the writers themselves.

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; Romans 12:9

The Crypto-Feminist

She’s not a bra-burning feminist, but …. But what? Who cares? If she says anything demeaning about men and/or plays the Sisterhood Victim Card then run.

Telltale signs: (1) She’ll show her colors early on when she gets you involved in a pseudo-intellectual discussion on the evils men have perpetuated against women. (2) She says, “I’m not a feminist, but …”

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 11:8-9; 1 Peter 3:1-6

Xenia (Warrior Princess)

The warrior princess makes it known publicly that she strong, independent and doesn’t need a man in order to be happy (as if anyone was truly concerned about that). She has a mile-long list of qualifications for any man who dares to take her on. She won’t compromise. Period. Since “compromise” is not in her vocabulary, marriage would obviously be a great inconvenience to her. Don’t make her a martyr. Make her happy. Oblige her by running the other way. (Try not to snicker when she then complains about “not being able to find a good man.”)

Telltale signs: Don’t worry about the signs. She’ll let you know up front what kind of woman she is.

Scriptures: Proverbs 26:5; Matthew 7:2

The Lady from the Movie “Fatal Attraction”

Unfortunately, religion attracts some really unsavory types. Yes, the previous categories are not relationship material, but the women in this last category are positively dangerous. We are talking about serious emotional and mental problems, here. If you detect any screws loose in your beloved, realize that she does not need a relationship as much as she needs professional help.

Telltale signs: Disturbing anti-social or deviant behavior.

Scriptures: Do I really need to give you scriptures to keep you from getting yourself hacked to pieces?


If you manage to avoid these women, you will be happy or at, the very least, you will be less miserable than otherwise. Yes, I am aware that if you follow this list, you will probably eliminate 99.9% of the women in your church community from consideration for a long-term relationship. Come, my friend, sit with Solomon and declare:

“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.

“‘Look,’ says the Teacher, ‘this is what I have discovered: Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things — while I was still searching but not finding — I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.'” (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28, NIV)


Public Policy for Men Going Their Own Way

There is a great post over at the Manpower Blog which discusses the necessity of limiting government in order to defeat feminism. “Mechanized,” the author, makes a comment about the Libertarian Party. I do not align myself easily even with an anti-statist party, but in the main, I can acknowledge the Libertarian Party could perhaps do some good. Anyway, I know “Mechanized” well and this worthy essay is par for the course for him. Give it a read by clicking here.


MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)


I shall live my life on my own terms, answering to no one but God. I shall be self-sufficient. I shall learn and grow each day. I shall not give in, and marry some harpy just because society says I should. I shall not partake of the massive consumerism in our society. I’ve limited my exposure to TV, so I shall not be contaminated by the poison of this world. In short, I shall try to be the best MAN I can be. I do this for those that follow after me, knowing that I shall not see the fruit of my efforts. It is a fight men must fight, and that’s that.

Men Going Their Own Way

The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and establish a limited government! By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent. By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible. By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice. Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men. This is the aim of “Men Going Their Own Way.” By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, we are helping boys grow up to become men.

This goal is to take away everybody’s “right” to vote on other people’s affairs thus rendering it impossible for political organisms and ideologies to impose their will on all people. It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights or making socialism illegal. It might have this as a side effect, but not directly, and not as a political ideology. Only the future will show what happens, and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys for that future.

Prime Strategies That Compliment Our Product and Goal

It is important for men to have a practical approach to implementing our strategies. The three main strategies we have are detailed as follows:

1. Instilling masculinity in men by:

  • Demanding respect for men
  • Serving as good male role models
  • Living independent lives
  • Fighting chivalry

2. Instilling femininity in women

We hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun those who refuse such accountability. Thus we induce women to behave and act as we wish them to and draw them into a complementary position with men instead of a competitive position as is now the case.

Qualities we want from women:

  • Nurturing
  • Supportive
  • Responsibility
  • Respectfulness
  • Honesty

3. Limiting government

In order to be independent of society, and live within it, while at the same time work for limiting governmental influence upon our daily lives, men will:

  • Go Their Own Way
  • Support other men
  • Legally reduce any taxpaying
  • Truthfully act out any duties in accordance with their conscience
  • Use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves

It is these three strategies that come together in one.

The Logo

This is the logo of our movement:

Every man supporting this idea is welcome to use the logo in this or similar contexts.


What we do as activism or the way we behave personally are the main tactics. Examples include:

  • Use of a logo which symbolizes the strategy.
  • Run one or many web-sites and forums that promotes this.
  • Run one or more web-sites which tells the truth about feminism.
  • Provide stickers, T-shirts, etc., with various statements such as “Chivalry is dead.”
  • Writing articles supporting our product.
  • Producing music promoting our product.
  • Hold international events and local meetings.
  • Establishing mens clubs.
  • Boycotting certain products.


You will basically be alone doing this. There is no organization supporting you. You just go your own way and do what you believe is right. You are never obligated beyond your own conscience. True masculinity is also about accepting the rights of other men and not letting them down for any short term personal benefits.

The Men’s Movement does actually cover a much larger picture. By instilling masculinity in others, as well as yourself, you will actually be improving the lives of everybody, including women and children.


Take care brother!

(Updated 8/2/05)


Does the Bible Compel Government to Legislate Morality?

Constantly I have heard Christians state something to effect that “government is supposed to enforce morality.” In other words, they assume that God expects political powers to force people to obey at least some parts of his law. That’s how I understand the argument anyway.

At face value, this idea certainly has some appeal to those of us who value the concept of integrity, responsibility, etc. But I still have a problem with it: it’s not really scriptural. I imagine that any critic reading this will reflexively parrot an array of passages from the Old Testament. The catch is that I am not under the Old Testament. Neither is any other faithful Christian (Hebrews 5:8-13). What about the New Testament? Romans 13:1-7, you say? Ok. Tell me specifically which “evildoers” in that passage are supposed to fall by the sword. You can’t and that’s the problem.

Over and over again, many Christians show themselves to be arbitrary in their understanding of how civil government relates to Christianity. Consider the problem of defining morality. Society at large usually has no problem with punishing thieves, murderers, rapists, and vandals. In a crude sense this represents the extent of most people’s moral sensibilities. The Religious Right, on the other hand, would add to the list of offenders the following: homosexuals, gamblers (unless your Bill Bennett), adulterers, prostitutes, porn users, drug users, and those who drink alcohol. That is the extent of morality for many fundamentalists. Beyond this, the Religious Right would not look to the government to impose particular tenets of a religious faith (and somehow, matters such as social justice and charity often get left off the list of “moral issues”). The problem is that the Scriptures do not look at “right” and “wrong” in this way.

With the Bible, there is no artificial delineation between “moral” laws to be imposed by the government and “religious” decrees to be imposed by the Church. That kind of differentiation is actually quite modern. On the other hand, for much of the history of Christendom, the Church and state were united in the minds of those who professed to be Christians. In a similar fashion, God’s law is also unified in its understanding of what “right” and “wrong” is. The cultist who teaches error on salvation is just as guilty before God as the thief (James 2:10). The “covetous” man is just as deserving of death as the murderer (Romans 1:29-32). But I have yet to see a social conservative ask for a covetous man to be hanged.

Obviously, I take issue with the way so many Christians pick and choose like a buffet which moral issues they expect to be codified into law. So does this mean that we should go back to a theocratic understanding of civil jurisprudence? There are some extremists (e.g., the Christian Reconstructionists) who want to do just that, using the Old Testament as a pattern for government (since the New Testament obviously doesn’t suit their purposes). Of course, Galatians 5:4 serves as a foil against those so inclined towards resurrecting the Old Covenant in any shape or form. So theocracy, whether it is full-blown or half-inflated, will not work.

Beyond this, I must ask which group would we consult when it comes time to defining morality for civil government? Many will say Christians. Of course, there is a lot of confusion in our society about who is a Christian. Do we follow the Catholics and outlaw contraceptives? No? Just the Protestants? Some Protestants like to drink. Okay, what about the Baptists, or maybe just the Churches of Christ? But divorce and remarriage is a moral issue. So which gospel preachers get to write the state laws on divorce?  Ones who allow remarriage for various reasons or ones who forbid remarriage altogether? If you think I’m being ridiculous, remember that many Christians think “morality” is the government’s business as mandated by God. So, I just want to know what is the logical end of such thinking.

The fact of the matter is that I have difficulty understanding how some institution maintained by secular people can bring about the righteousness of God. If the people have no faith, no amount of government sanctioned force will do any good. In fact, if conservatives concede that moral laxity leads to the expansion of government, and thus tyranny, why do so many of them do an about face and expect our government to peep in everybody’s bedroom? If a person is not conformed to the image of Christ, sodomy laws are not going to matter much, except as a profession of somebody’s creed (which may not represent everybody’s thinking). Likewise, if people do not have a true, Biblical understanding of the sanctity of life, police protection from violence is at best a precarious matter; just ask those who lived under Saddam Hussein.

Even if we concede that government serves some useful purpose in protecting society from actual threats (such as to person or property), how can we justify an expanded role of government in enforcing other moral matters such as sexual purity? Some may counter that sexual immorality is a “threat to our families.” But quite frankly, that threat is more metaphysical than material. Consumerism is a threat to our families, too, but I don’t hear calls for legislation on that. Indeed, on some issues of morality, we must concede it is merely our religious sensibilities that are being threatened. Asking government to protect me from having my religious sensibilities assaulted is not sound jurisprudence, it’s political correctness.

The bottom line is that Christians need to start looking again to Jesus to save the souls of people, not to politicians. I have often found many people who run for office and claim to stand for “family values” or issues “that matter to people of faith” are often hypocritical and ignorant of what the Bible really teaches. I’m not voting for them anymore than I would vote for a “secular” person. Why? Because they present a distorted picture of spirituality. They profane what is sacred.

Readers, morality is equal to religion. Why? Because in the eyes of God, you are “moral” only to the extent that you obey the dictates of the religion he established. Therefore, I do not think I do violence to James when I say: Pure and undefiled morality is this: to visit the orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world (see James 1:27 NKJV). Let’s start keeping ourselves unspotted instead of expecting the government to keep people partially unspotted.