Tuesday, July 26, 2016


   Blogger Insanity Bytes has an interesting article, which can be read here.  The article critiques one of the Game Cultists, who's taken issue with an article written by Mary Kassian on the subject of women tolerating domestic abuse.

     To set up the premise of this controversy, Miss Kassian received an inquiry from a reader who evidently was married to a domineering bully, but was confused as to whether she, as a Christian woman should assert her rights. Miss Kassian writes in response:

    "I believe that the Bible teaches that a husband's position as head of the home does not give him a right to rule, but rather the responsibility to provide loving oversight. A husband is not imparted with privilege, he is entrusted with obligation---the obligation to love, cherish, and shepherd in emulation of Christ."

   Which statement echoes what the New Testament and subsequent Church authorities have written. And she states the crux of the matter succinctly: "The questions pertain to whether a husband has a right to force his wife to do something against her will... It is not the husband's right to force or coerce his wife to submit. Submission is voluntary on a wife's part and her choice entirely."

    One of the Manosphere Game Gurus---whose readership attracts thousands of men---wrote a rather rage-filled and disingenuous rebuttal to Miss Kassian. It would be unnecessary to go through it point-by-point, since it is filled with typically cultish non sequiturs and Game-Theory neologisms. He states emphatically, for example that "the post follows the Duluth Model framing headship as abuse" although she never mentions the Duluth Model.

      The original question posed to Miss Kassian was whether a husband had a right to do things like taking away a wife's phone, her keys, preventing her from leaving the home, forcing her to accompany him outside, locking the wife out of the house, concealing financial documents, and taking her personal property without her consent."

      One can only conclude from this is that the Gamers' ideal of a Christian husband is to treat wives in this kind of fashion. He gives his intentions away by writing the following:

      "Kassian is inviting wives to teach their own husbands on the proper way to exercise headship." he thunders, "No matter how you look at Kassian's article, she has no business writing such a thing, even under the most libertine complimentarian interpretations of Scripture. Only an egalitarian would argue that is appropriate for Kassian to teach what she is teaching."

       What he therefore derisively sneers at as libertine, complimentary, and egalitarian, is the notion that women are somehow equal in the Eyes of God and that the Christian ideal of gender polarity does not put positive reciprocal obligations on either party.

        Why is something as brutish as the Game Cult so popular? It is because it appeals to three of the worst elements in Postmodernist culture: narcissism, the belief that ends justify the means, and the evasion of personal responsibility.

         Game is narcissistic in that it teaches the superiority of certain initiated Alpha Males who ostensibly bend others to serve their will. It teaches then that force and fraud are justifiable means of achieving one's ends, and that Might makes Right. Then it covers its crimes with pseudo-religious authority so that responsibility for their actions fall upon God rather than upon themselves.

         Needless to say, we will not solve Domestic Violence by condoning it. Domestic Violence happens because we are taught that the gender differences are part of a class-war and that interpersonal relationships are premised on power. This is also how the Game Cult so easily can masquerade as a religion; its practitioners operate under the assumption that they are warriors in a holy crusade fighting a cultural war.  In this respect, they are no different from the Feminists whom they condemn.








  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. Replies
    1. I am supposed to care what his commenters say?

    2. Before you delete my response, please explain how Kassian's ideology differs from the Duluth model that only women are victims of DV.

    3. I won't delete your response; that only happens to people who throw out insults as the previous one was doing.

      Actually it was the blogger Dalrock who simply asserted that she used the Duluth Model, Mary Kassian did not mention it. Also, the reason that her article only addressed women as victims of DV is because it related to a specific case where a woman was being victimized. The Duluth Model is premised on radical feminist thought; but Mary Kassian herself appears unsympathetic to feminism.

      I would suspect that she doesn't believe that only women are DV victims, but since her blog is directed at women, it is natural that she would address DV against women more often---the same way that blogs like A Voice for Men emphasize DV issues against males.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. First, it's my opinion that Dalrock recently has begun to target complementarians. He seems to go in half-cocked, and his evaluations seem to be excessively negative.

    "What he therefore derisively sneers at as libertine, complimentary, and egalitarian, is the notion that women are somehow equal in the Eyes of God and that the Christian ideal of gender polarity does not put positive reciprocal obligations on either party."

    Note: Presuming you cut and pasted the quote from Dalrock's post, how did the correct complementarian become the incorrect complimentarian? I hope you also understand the difference between complementarianism and egalitarianism, but you seem to conflate the two.

    Before you make such a derisive post, it would help if you were to read with understanding. In effect, it seems you went in half-cocked just like it seems Dalrock did. Dalrock's post had two main points, and you are mixing the two. The first part of the post is arguing that Kassian, as a woman, does not have the biblical authority to teach men, and that she is teaching wives to teach their husbands although wives do not have the biblical authority to do so. Dalrock has a reasonable argument here. However, you seem to think this part of his post is related to the topic of abuse.

    The second part of his post (beginning with "Putting all of this aside, there is also the massive problem of the message itself.") relates to his belief that she is teaching the Duluth model. I think he is really stretching Kassian's text to get there, and I don't think Dalrock has a very good argument. I think he should have just stuck to the first point, but it's almost like he has a quota of complaints against complementarians to meet.

    "Game is narcissistic in that it teaches the superiority of certain initiated Alpha Males who ostensibly bend others to serve their will. It teaches then that force and fraud are justifiable means of achieving one's ends, and that Might makes Right. Then it covers its crimes with pseudo-religious authority so that responsibility for their actions fall upon God rather than upon themselves."

    Did you make this up? It displays a poor understanding of Game. Here is a better definition: "Game is behaving as though you are of a higher Sexual Market Value than you appear." I think most of the complaints made by Christians about "Christian Game" are based on ignorance. In other words, they think it means something different from what it actually means. As two examples of many, I do not believe that "Christian Game" would include using force to get one's own way or that "Might makes Right".

    1. If you really ponder and think about it. The "Christian" Gamer/ Red pill cultists really ARE blaming God for for 'faulty female nature" Men like this take zero accountability for themselves.

      These types really should be shamed

    2. I like and really agree with here.. in a way.. kinda- the SMV thing is rather lol). "Game is behaving as though you are of a higher Sexual Higher Market Value than you may appear. "

      True.And both sexes do this. It's really just a mating dance.

    3. One question, however, why do your brothers condemn women for behaving as though hey are a higher SMV than they really are?

    4. DV Survivor,

      I will continue to maintain that you (and others) are quite mistaken in your understanding of "Christian Red Pill" and "Christian Game".

      As to the notion of "faulty female nature", I think they consider that women do behave in the way God designed them. In God's design of marriage, this would be ideal. But, since society continues to move away from God's design, both for marriage and sexuality, women's default nature results in increasing problems. (Note: The changes in society also allow men's default nature to result in increasing problems.)

      If you have no understanding of the concepts of Sexual Market Value and Marriage Market Value, then you further confirm my belief that you really don't have much of an understanding of Red Pill and Game. If you'd like me to explain SMV and MMV, I will be glad to do so.

      I agree that Game is primarily "mating dance", and, yes, both sexes do it. Game is a name for an understanding of the "mating dance" from the male perspective, based on a belief that women's behavior is better understood now. As to women's "mating dance" behavior, I don't think there is a well-distributed equivalent to Game.

      I don't know who you think my "brothers" are, but I will presume that you mean Christian Red Pillers. I question your use of "condemn" as I suspect they are likely pointing out the absurdity of the woman's perception of her SMV.

      As to the problems of a woman believing her SMV is higher than actual, it is likely to result in the woman becoming unhappy in relationships, perhaps even ending it. For that matter, she may never choose a good potential partner because of her mistaken perception. Again, if you don't understand that, you need to learn more about Red Pill and Game.

    5. Hi OKRickety, thanks for your response,

      I have read enough of secular Red Pill philosophy- Roosh, Rollo, Roissey (gag)to form a pretty clear opinion, that yes, most are snake oil salesmen selling something very palatable to bitter, heartbroken suckers who are looking for validation and rationale to hate and condemn the "enemy"-which are ALL women-not just the feminazi-type.

      According to these troglodytes, a woman's brain really is not human- but a only composed of a lizard-hamster concoction that morphs into a cock -carousel hypergamous beast.Cultist BS-

      Whilst these hucksters are annoying, they really do not concern me as they are heathen folk and do not tarnish the name of Christ. He is a hypocrite.

      Sorry Mr. Rickety- the Red Pill DIRECTLY contradicts the words and actions of our Savior. The sexism, racism and hate exhibited by these bloggers will NEVER further the Kingdom. and only gives fodder to the leftists who may or may not be interested in the Gospel:

      " See- I told you Christian men are misogynists- look at this blogger and the comment section"( which on Dalrocks site is TRULY heinous)

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. Hello again OKRickety,

      I still have no idea how it happened -but apparently by accident I deleted part of my earlier post to you. Forgive me if it was a tad confusing...the following is to be inserted after my fourth paragraph..

      There are three "Christian" Red Pill bloggers that come to mind and truly concern me.

      One who recently got really infuriated when a certain Christian female blogger spoke out against abusive husbands. He applies the old adage of "children should be seen and not heard" -well-to women. He refuses to see women as fully human. He also identifies as an "Alt Righter" which is a red flag. He does not concede that women were also made in God's Image. Not a good representative of The Kingdom. Oh- and many of his follower's make my skin crawl. (I have read some of your posts and your comments are not offensive BTW- thank you for remaining a decent human:))

      The other is a man who is against the 19th Amendment, thinks education ruins women and that the Taliban was right to(attempt)murder Malala Yousafrzai. This nice gentleman also is fine with honor killings and throwing acid on uppity women's faces. Ironically he is married to a seemingly well educated attractive blonde who poses in a bikini for her twitter pic. Saying he is a hypocrite would be kind.
      A blatantly horrible representative of Christ.

      The third thinks a woman should kneel before her husband to show that she is really, truly and completely submissive.
      Now this BDSM -type behavior is bordering on Blasphemy for obvious reasons. Women should certainly respect and defer to their husbands- but this is going too far.

      All of these gents embrace the Red Pillian philosophy which stinks of Darwinism if one thinks about it. A woman's worth is based on her looks and ability to reproduce. If she does not full fill this role she is a waste of oxygen. Once she loses these abilities she is basically worthless. Reminds me a lot of that 70's film "Logans Run"

      A man has more leeway- but his value nonetheless is based on his aptitude of reproduction as well both material and offspring- and the wealth he amasses during his lifetime. If he loses this ability he is also considered worthless.

      There is no such thing as a human's innate value to these people. They have a shallow, superficial viewpoint which is the opposite of the Christian belief that humans- both male and female, ugly and lovely, weak and strong- are made in God's Image.

      There may be truths in the Red Pill, but like Rad Feminism- the evil out ways the good- especially in a Christian context.

      Thanks for being respectful and courteous during our discussion. I don't think we will ever agree on this subject but God Bless and keep you and your family safe and well.

    8. DV Survivor,

      "... the Red Pill DIRECTLY contradicts the words and actions of our Savior."

      That's much too broad of a statement for me to treat it seriously. My immediate response is to want to ask you to provide some proof, but I am not going to do that. Nor am I going to provide you with examples showing otherwise.

      No doubt there are self-proclaimed "Red Pill" men who make statements that directly contradict God. But, surely, based on your reading, you know that there is no one "Bible" of Red Pill. That is why I dismiss your statement as too broad.

      What happens to groups that are persecuted? It is my understanding that it tends to increase their solidarity, increase resistance to attacks, and increase their desire to take action to attack their enemies. If true, then the efforts of you and others to attack them is unlikely to have the results that you want. If the Christians who are involved in Red Pill are wrong, then I believe God will take care of it in His way and in His timing.

      I suspect that anti-Red Pill material actually results in them them becoming more well-known, gets their websites more hits, and strengthens their determination. So, go ahead, attack them at the risk of improving their situation. I rather suspect you have other opportunities to further the Kingdom. Your work there is likely to be more beneficial than attacking Christians involved in Red Pill.

      Note: If I was deciding what I thought about Red Pill and I found this post and comments, my reaction would be that these women are very negative (e.g. snake oil salesmen, troglodytes, hucksters, sexism, racism, hate). In effect, suggesting to me that these women have an agenda, that is, this seems out of line and I am suspicious of their claims. Their statements are so extreme that I question their motives. As a result, my next action would be to do my own research. That might not be the typical response, but I suspect it is true of most men, at least the ones who didn't immediately ignore the whole thing because it was written by women. In other words, men may be driven to Red Pill sites by this post and comments.

    9. Red Pill philosophy is hedonistic, worldly, selfish and superficial. Of course it directly contradicts the teaching of Christ-Red Pill is self-seeking: Now a TRUE follower of Christ practices the opposite of these. Someone really needs to dust off their bible and focus especially on the New Testament.

      My words really do not matter- His Does

    10. And really, red pill men are deluded if they think they are being persecuted if they live in the Western world. same goes for the ridiculous fems. My goodness. We really are blessed to live here.

  7. Great article. You have a very rational, insightful perspective on the Cult of Game and it's cancerous influence on vulnerable, and most likely- heartbroken Christian men. Thank you for telling the truth.

    Mary Kassian's post was a direct response to a Christian woman whose husband had used the Bible to rationalize his abuse. There was absolutely nothing feminist in her tone. Just good sound advice. Only someone who is an abuser would take qualms with her response.

    The Red Pill philosophy is completely devoid of love, selflessness compassion,patience and mercy. It is bitter, angry, hedonistic and selfish. Such a viewpoint has no place in a Christian's life and should be shunned.

    Our duty as Christians is to further the Gospel and we do so by exhibiting the Fruits of the Spirit. If I were on the fence, but considering becoming a Christian- I would run to the hills after reading the commentary and nasty hateful comments displayed on that blog.

    1. Thank you and I agree with your assessment of the Game Cult and with Mary Kassian's article. The insidious way that Dalrock writes is calculated to employ innuendo, guilt-by-association, and other rhetorical tricks to camouflage what he's really advocating.

    2. Thank you Night Wind.. As a survivor of an extreme scenario of both DV and radical feminism - your blog is a breath of very clean air.