Sunday, May 22, 2016


         Certain elements within the Manosphere who advocate the cultish philosophy of Game, have recently taken up a new term to disparage their opponents: Egalitarianism. Now, it's evident from their writings that they have no idea what the term actually means. Egalitarianism is simply a view relating to socio-political equality within a prescribed framework of civilized social norms. Of course, any philosophy that promotes equality denies supremacy; and Supremacy is one of Game's fundamental premises.

          It needs to pointed out, however, that the Cultural Marxists also pervert the meaning of Egalitarianism. They have grafted on to the idea of equality Moral Relativism and Utilitarian Ethics. Under such a paradigm, equality becomes a meaningless concept since there are no circumscribed boundaries under which it can operate. Under the old paradigm, women were presumed equal within the Feminine Polarity; and equal with men under the Law and under God. Radical Feminism, a component of Cultural Marxism, destroyed the social boundaries and left us with the pseudo-equality of Androgyny.

          The Gamers, as they always do, accept the Cultural Marxist paradigm as normative, which makes the Egalitarian term a pejorative one. One of the chieftains of the Game Cult, a self-professed happily married father in a post-feminist world, now even refers to clerics outside his sect as 'Egalitarian Pastors' (as if that term describes their denominations) and took issue with one Rev. Wade Burleson. Burleson is quoted by them as follows:

            "Any religion on Earth that refuses to assist women to find their basic needs met in Jesus Christ, any religion that refrains from pointing to women the King of Kings and encourages them to revel in the riches of being 'wed to Christ' and any religion that somehow makes a woman think that she needs her husband (spiritually, emotionally, or materially) is a religion that is not based on the Infallible Scriptures or God's Kingdom. On the other hand, those Christian women who have been set free from the bondage of believing that they need their husbands to meet their basic needs, and then instead simply love their husbands from the overflow of experientially resting in the love and provisions of Christ will find a little slice of Heaven in their homes."

               Although phrased somewhat awkwardly (and assuming that the writer quoting him didn't take him out of context), what Burleson is essentially arguing is that Christian wives should reclaim their status as Sisters in Christ within the context of a marriage: a position wholly advocated in the New Testament and by the Church Fathers. It's Burleson's use of the term needing their husbands that has the Gamers stirred up. It's evident here that what Burleson actually refers to are Christian wives who are using their husbands as a crutch instead of fulfilling their feminine roles as helpmeets and co-laborers in Christ. But that's not how the Gamers spin it:

               "Feminism tells us that women are to be strong and independent and that it is a sin for a woman to need a man." he proclaims. Actually, Feminism tells us that women are supposed to submit its doctrines, and it is a 'sin' to go against Political Correctness. But he continues: "But the Bible tells us that women are to submit to and revere their husbands, and to turn to them for spiritual instruction. What is a Christian Feminist to do? The answer is of course to craft a biblical-sounding argument that submitting to husbands is a sin and that women need to be strong and independent."

                 This is a blatant deception because Burleson said nothing in the quote about submission as a sin. What Burleson described was a Christian wife recognizing her God-given strength in Christ to better her abilities to serve her husband. Burleson makes this clear saying: "A woman is to get her significance, security, and love from her union with Jesus Christ, and never a union with any man."

                   The Gamers take offense at that suggestion too, because wives might conclude from it that it is not their Christian duty to submit to abuse and infidelity (which the Game Cultists routinely insist that they should). They throw up their hands in pious horror that Burleson should say:

               "Therefore if your husband is unfaithful or abusive, confront your husband in love and draw a boundary. Tell your husband that you cannot control his actions nor is it your desire to control him. Let him know that if he desires another woman or feels the need to abuse you, then you will let him go. You can and will end the marriage because you do not need him. In many marriages, wives will unintentionally enable their husbands to continue in sin and addictions because they unintentionally substitute their husbands for Christ. When a wife cannot picture a future without her husband, she has made the marriage her idol and lost her perspective on the reality that her marriage is intended to reflect her union with Christ."

                    Now, it is altogether obvious that Burleson is addressing women who are trapped in abusive relationships---of the type the Game Cult holds up as an ideal. So naturally, the author exhausts his vocabulary on the type of wife who would dare stand up to a swinish husband; calling such things an act of rebellion. He concludes all of this by saying that feminine selfishness is really the problem here---if a husband acts like a brute, it's only a sinful and rebellious wife who would object.

                    Overall, what Burleson stated was correct; it is not a Christian virtue to submit willingly to willful abuse. Though we have to disagree with Burleson that the two genders do not need one another; a relationship that has lost its meaning through the actions of one party is invalidated. The Sacrament of Marriage is inviolate only so long as continuance in it does not produce a greater evil, such as infidelity or abuse. The Gamers again show that they only use 'Christian Marriage' as a cloak to conceal their gender-supremacist ideology.




  1. Much as I disagree with Gamers, I think they are right over here. Western society never was egalitarian, and while women were treated overall decently, the role of the husband as the head of the family was enshrined in law, in my country as far as the end of the 1960s. The idea that I don't need my husband is highly offensive to me and it's also the first step to a divorce court. Also in traditional family the husband is the breadwinner, of course the wife needs him financially. Does the good pastor suggest all wives and mothers should work full time?

  2. The problem with some of these blogs isn't that they believe that women have duties towards men, we do; the problem is they don't believe it's reciprocal. They simply don't understand how a patriarchal society works and how many obligations men have, not only to their wives but to all female relatives. So they whine that women have it much easier nowadays, but the fact is that men have it much easier, too.

  3. Yes, I don't necessarily endorse what Burleson said---I agree the two genders need one another. It appears that Burleson was speaking about wives trapped in abusive situations, but the Gamers took that out of context and applied to ALL marriages. The OP even drew a parallel between Burleson's advice and a totally unrelated situation.

    If I'd written a critique of Burleson personally, I would have approached it from a far different standpoint.

    When the Gamers talk about Egalitarianism what they really oppose are 1)equality of the genders before God---which I think is what Burleson was trying to say (though rather awkwardly); and 2)the idea that marriage is to be Complementarian---which implies equality balanced by polarity.

    As for Egalitarianism as a philosophy: it something presumed in Western Republicanism. It has to be understood that the concept NEVER meant unlimited personal equality, as modern Leftists understand it. It takes into account gender polarity and the natural differences between human beings. What it originally meant was the obligation of the STATE to maintain liberty and justice; law and order---for every one equally.