Why Marriage Needs Men

I’d very much like to leave religion, at least in the organized sense, as a topic for another blog, however, as it applies to Game and intergender social dynamics it’s occurred to me that this isn’t entirely possible. Since its inception the SoSuave community has had a strict policy against threads specifically exploring religious topics. For obvious reasons these tend to get rather heated in terms of discussing theology, and most simply devolve into flame wars with no real purpose. Yet, in terms of how religion and moralism apply to the intergender landscape and sexual marketplace, I think it does a disservice to a fuller understanding of how the sexes relate to one another. In my tenure as a SoSuave forum moderator it pains me to have to delete so many promising threads because the topic strayed form “Game and religion” into “My God can beat up your God.” So my disclaimer for this blog is this; any time I delve into the subject of religion, moralism,  ethics or anything that might be construed as esoterically inspired, understand that I do so in an effort to address how it influences the social dynamics between genders. Never is it an attack on individual beliefs, rather consider it a critical analysis of how those beliefs interact with the reality we live in.

Why men need marriage.

Today’s topic article comes to us courtesy of Pastor Mark Driscoll. I briefly touched upon Driscoll’s pollyanna, socio-religious propositions in Could a Man Have Written This? and reference him in Build a Better Beta. Driscoll’s article, while ostensibly written to advertise his latest book, is really an essay in irony. This irony is literally written into the article’s title, and I’m certain that Mark is entirely oblivious to it. You can go ahead and read his very simplistic overview of modern gender relations; it will scarcely impress all but the most green of noobs in the manosphere that Driscoll is firmly planted in the world created by the feminine imperative. Even in just asserting ‘men need marriage’ we get an appetizer of the gruel of male shaming yet to be served. Sadly, he’s not covering any new ground that Kay Hymowitz and the bleatings of Kate Bollick haven’t already beat him to the punch with.

I don’t think I need to go in to too much detail about Driscoll throwing rocks at the moon to make it go away. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Game can see him for what he is. My concern is that HE doesn’t see himself for what he is. I’m concerned because I think his head is in the right place, but he so lacks any real-world experience with the sexual marketplace that he’s unaware of his participation in promoting a world view he’d otherwise be adamantly opposed to. Driscoll shares in the major failing of Social Conservatives in terms of understanding Game; they are the unwitting instruments of the feminine imperative.

Driscoll’s intent is to see men returned to some semblance of traditional masculinity, with all the benefits and liabilities that antiquated romanticism implies, but he employs the chief ideologies and tools of the feminine imperative to do so. The shaming conventions, implied lethargy, shirking of male-attributable responsibilities, et. al. he uses are the same clichés the feminine imperative has established as the articles of Man-Up! 2.0. Mark is blissfully unaware of the Male Catch 22:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

Mark Driscoll’s presumptive starting point is putting men in the subservient role, while expecting them to Man-Up, take control, and be better men all with the idealized goal of becoming more appropriate, more suitable men for women. Marriage is the goal and the cure to prolonged adolescence – in other words better serving the feminine imperative qualifies men to be adults. From Could a Man have Written This?:

In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of [female] bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

Without an afterthought Driscoll titles his diatribe “Why Men NEED marriage” with the presumption that getting married will force men to Man-Up. This is the extent of his critical thought, because he has no realistic frame of reference beyond what his self-righteous Matrix-think conditioning will permit. He’s batting for Team Woman (not unlike another infamous female blogger), but would have us believe it’s for our own good.

Sanitizing Game

Recently there’s been an upswing in a social conservative push to ‘sanitize’ Game; essentially taking the drive and principles of the manosphere and converting them to fit into their doctirnal narrative:

A major illustration of this can be found in the ‘late-to-the-party’ resurgence of masculine ideals in mainstream evangelical christianity today. Like so much else in christian culture, they’re happy to use the popularity of a secular phenomenon and repackage it as kosher, the manosphere is no exception. Hacks like Mark Driscoll and more than few other “relevant” new order evangelical pastors have co-opted manosphere (MRA?) fundamentals – even ‘purified’ forms of Game – as their particular cause du jour for returning men back into their roles of accountability to the female imperative. This of course has an overwhelming appeal to White Knight prone guys, but the push is disingenuous for the same reason ‘pro-men’ female writers are – they still use the girl-world, female imperative rule book to define their outlook.

Rediscovering masculinity is the new black in ‘relevant’ church. It sells very well, and in and of itself it’s not too dissimilar from the perspectives of the manosphere about owning your gender. The similarities end in the application. While it maybe cathartic to beat your chest and pretend to fight like a UFC fighter at some ‘christian’ men’s weekend (evangelicals men have inexplicably embraced MMA fighting in the last 5 years), the takeaway message is still one of apologizing for their testosterone. They can only own their masculinity insofar as it doesn’t upset the feminine imperative.

Never take dating advice, or really any opinion of intergender relations seriously when it’s coming from moralistic guys who’ve never had the benefit of past, first hand experience with women. Evangelical understanding of gender relations is based only upon a very insular and anachronistic perspective. Consequently, what constitutes their understanding is derived from living vicariously through their unchurched friends, romantic comedies, reading statistics that agree with their perspective, all in an effort to make themselves feel better about having married the first girl they met at church camp.

Driscoll is a fantastic illustration of a guy who’s been entirely out of touch with the social changes and the sexual marketplace since he got married.


For further reading Dalrock has an excellent breakdown of this article here.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

14 comments on “Why Marriage Needs Men

  1. Patriarchy is not misogyny, no matter how many times they say it is.

    I will not take responsibility for someone without also having authority over them, as I will be ineffective and end up getting played like a chump.

    One of the tough things about “game” and church is that those who accept Jesus are pushed with emotional shaming tactics on how they need to get married, because the bible says so.

    What nobody seems to mention is how marriage looked REAL different 2000 years ago, than it does today. 2000 years ago, women couldn’t run the bullshit they legally run today. Give me back my Patriarchy, and I’ll see about “manning up”.

  2. Great find, this article shows that the contemporary churches and die hard feminists are indistinguishable.

    I love how one of the female commentators pushes the idea of Hosea remarrying his prostitute wife and Joseph marrying Mary as a normative representation of how men should act.

  3. I wonder about the possible reason for the recent proliferation of these “man up!” articles. Is it simply that even ignorant and sheltered journalists have finally realized how dysfunctional the current SMP is? Or is there a new round of anti-male legislation prepared by Congress, possibly a bachelor tax, and these articles are designed to psychologically prepare the populace?

  4. “evangelicals men have inexplicably embraced MMA fighting in the last 5 years”

    This is too funny. The associate pastor at my latest attempt at church is big into this, and damn good at it to boot.

    It is sad how much my motivation to go to church faded after reading Dalrock’s post (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/does-your-church-measure-divorce/). The effect of the decades of brainwashing from my single mother were never more apparent that after that post finally sunk in.

  5. I am surprised evnagelicals have started pushing MMA. Can anyone link me to some good articles on the subject? Or elaborate a bit about their thinking.

    1. This might help shed some light on the subject-


      Now that you mention it one of my ex employees is big into MMA. He also happens to be a “devout” christian and the worlds biggest mangina. He always wants to meet up for the UFC PPV fights but I’m not sure I’m into hanging out with a bunch of religious people who are 15 years younger than me.

  6. “Driscoll is a fantastic illustration of a guy who’s been entirely out of touch with the social changes and the sexual marketplace since he got married.”

    This is an excellent point, and it’s become clear to me that among most middle-aged people, even those who are trying to understand things just can’t fathom how different and more dysfunctional the marketplace is.

    It’s like talking to your grandfather waxing about “things were a lot simpler when I was young.”

    Obviously, this hits young men very hard, as they are given advice for a comparatively restrained, ordered dating culture when it’s no-holds barred and he needs to play to win.

    Even among those who would be prepared to be honest if they had the right information, I don’t think most middle-aged moms can understand how much more demanding their daughters are for dominance and uniqueness among men, how much more intensely they are chasing the top 20% at the expense of the rest of the boys. They don’t want to believe it, but at the same time they think, why shouldn’t their daughters have the best?

  7. If they actually were in an MMA ring the self-righteous religious guys might discover that they yet again over-estimated themselves when their MMA fantasy ends as they get kicked in the head.

  8. I recall reading a post some time ago on sherdog or bullshido, I forget where, that consisted of a newbie MMA guy asking about MMA’s relevance to “real fighting.” I took this to mean fights in bars and the like because they poster seemed young to me based upon his syntax, writing style, and other contextual clues.

    At any rate, there were the standard “my style can beat up your style” remarks until a forum veteran replied with a post that really cut to the chase. He simply posted a list of the techniques that were explicitly disallowed in the UFC (e.g. head butts, eye gouges, etc.) and then said if you really want to get into bar fights and things like that, learn to do all of these well because there’s a good reason they’re disallowed in the MMA world: they work too well and too quickly to put on a good show or get past licensing boards.

    Personally, I’d also add things like learn to deep conceal, use, and quickly and untraceably get rid of weapons (ever notice how people who regularly engage in this stupid shit use a lot of small knives, small pistols, and disguised weapons – look up police guides to concealed weapons for some hints like “LA-DisguisedWeapons.pdf” on google to get the shit scared out of you), hit first without warning, fight multiple opponents or fight with multiple friends, be willing to ambush men pissing in urinals or do whatever you have to do, and get a good lawyer. In other words, learn and master the mindset and techniques of a totally different person than who you probably are if you’re posting a question like that. And it wouldn’t hurt to be a total fucking moron while you’re at it.

    The point is that this evangelical embrace of MMA is not really surprising because it allows for the thrills without the danger. Sure you can get hurt in the ring or cage, maybe even permanently injured or killed at the extreme margins, but you can get killed much more easily when the guy you didn’t notice with the .22 Magnum derringer shoots you in the back of the head as you wrestle on the bar room floor with his 1% MC brother or as you bleed out after performing a perfect 1-2-3 combination on his cousin in a parking lot after he blindside prison rushes you with his concealed box cutter.

    Similarly, evangelicals nerfing game and rediscovering their masculinity in half-measure allows them to get a small testosterone high without truly questioning their core beliefs about women and men. That would be really dangerous as they’re psychologically and socially invested in their religious identities, just as we all are with out own identities. That’s the challenge of the red pill. Self-discovery and fundamental change are real scary motherfuckers because they begin by questioning everything you ever though and felt about life, and you have no real idea who you’ll become when you’re done.

    So the MMA/Evangelical connection makes sense to me. It’s an easy cop out: a safe roller coaster ride that will end with the restraint bar rising upwards and a safe exit from the exciting ride to return to a mundane reality without exposing their inner selves to any frighteningly serious danger. That’s the connection in my opinion.

    Great business model. The UFC should jump on this like stink on shit if they haven’t already, which I bet they have. Those guys don’t miss much.

Leave a Reply to Good Luck Chuck Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: