Feminism is Hell


From the years 697BC to 643BC King Manasseh reigned as king of Judah. The Bible describes his reign as evil. Many have argued that he was the worst of all the kings in the southern kingdom. Among the list of his evil deeds is the devout worship of Moloch:

“He sacrificed his own son in the fire” [2 Kings 21:6]

Not only did he sacrifice his own son, but he perpetuated Moloch worship during his reign. The focal point of these deeds was in Jerusalem in the Valley of Ben Hinnom. God was so incensed by these abominations that he sent his prophet Jeremiah to condemn it:

“They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.” [Jeremiah 19:5-6]

By the time of Jesus, the Valley of Ben Hinnom was known by the name Gehenna. Jesus talked about it often. But Gehenna is not the name that we use in English. We use “Hell”, the place of death. Hell, the most special kind of place, is named after those who murder their own children.

When Judah, under King Manasseh’s reign, murdered hundreds (or possibly thousands) of children, God was so ticked off that “Hell” now commemorates it. We’ve seen previously that feminism is a religion of death. One of its primary rituals is child sacrifice: abortion. In the last four decades nearly 2 billion babies have been sacrificed to Moloch in its name. It’s hard to truly comprehend a number that large. Those are video game numbers representing human lives.

If God lost his religion over the deaths of thousands, imagine how he views the deaths of billions. Feminism is truly hell. No, that’s not right. I think even Hell is personally disturbed and horrified by 2 billion murdered children. Feminism is worse than Hell. We just don’t have any other name to describe it.

† This small valley still exists in Jerusalem. You can go visit it.

Embracing Feminist Scouting


For decades, the Girl Scouts of the USA has been pushing extreme feminism at the expense of our young girls. Not wanting to miss the chance to attack our enemies, Dalrock took a vicious stab at feminist-driven scouting by attacking the American Heritage Girls.

“One of the astounding things modern Christians have done is twist Scripture into a gospel of girlpower.  Christian women are now taught that the Gospel is a message of high self esteem. From American Heritage Girls Girl Power and God’s Power:”

Wait, what? Is this the Christian-run American Heritage Girls, the same organization that was founded to give a countering alternative to the activist feminist Girl Scouts of the USA? I had a look at the AHG website to see what it had to say:

“Girl Power” on its own is a flawed movement. It places all its meaning in the human understanding of man and woman, embracing concepts of cultural feminism as the sole source of worth. But we know as Christians that humankind’s purpose doesn’t come from Earthly sources—it’s of God. Just as worth does not come from intelligence, appearance or wealth, nor does it come from the idea of feminine validation.

Apparently if there is one thing that we should condemn about scouting for girls, it is those organizations that oppose feminism and teach that we should have inner joy because every life has intrinsic worth.

Long time readers of this blog know that the majority of content focuses on directly attacking the causes and supporters of feminism. By contrast, blogs like Vox Day and Dalrock are really feminist blogs riddled with half-truths.

Dalrock, specifically, spends almost all his time vilifying anti-feminists. Given the choice between attacking a popular activist feminist organization or an anti-feminist organization whose worst crime is not being amazing at teaching theology, Dalrock chooses the latter. When faced with the choice to attack feminist thought policing or embrace it, Dalrock chooses the latter.

Pay attention and know who your friends and enemies are.

Breast Cancer and Abortion


Twelve percent of women will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. A quarter million new cases are diagnosed each year. Many will go through chemotherapy and/or have breasts removed. It will still kill around 40,000 women a year (~14% death rate).

Women who give birth in their teens through early twenties have the lowest risk of developing breast cancer. The more children they have—and the earlier they have them—the better. Paradoxically, women who give birth for the first time in their 30s actually have an increased risk.

Cancer risk goes up while on the pill. Cancer risk declines with breast feeding.

By promoting delayed (or no) marriage and having fewer (or no) children feminism literally harms women.

Feminists will often state that banning abortion would harm women’s health. About 700 women die each year as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications. This is two orders of magnitude less than the number of deaths due to breast cancer.

Consider a pro-family society where abortion is banned completely and men and women marry and start families in their teens and early twenties. Even a small percentage decrease in breast cancer due to this would result in significant health benefits to women.


It is often best to cite the evidence presented by your enemies and use it against them. This limits your bias and increases the strength of your arguments. If you read some of the links above, you’ll notice the well-cited claim that abortion (probably) does not increase the cancer risk compared to all women (and those who have miscarriages).

This really tiptoes around the core issue: abortion means a woman does not have a full-term pregnancy and birth when she otherwise would have except for abortion. Thus the woman who aborts is voluntarily not receiving the protective benefits that come with giving birth and breast feeding—benefits that would have happened if not for the abortion.

She should be compared to the women who give birth, not all women in general and not women who have involuntary abortions (miscarriages). If this is done, it becomes plain that abortion intentionally increases her risk relative to what it would have been if she had not gotten an abortion.

Feminism truly is the Religion of Death.

 When a woman dies from breast cancer, it was the cancer that killed her. When a woman dies from complications due to pregnancy, it is not the pregnancy that killed her, but the various complications. So you can save lives directly be decreasing cancer, but you can’t directly increase or decrease pregnancy complications by changing the number of pregnancies. Other factors are at play that prevent direct, immediate causation.

Religion of Death

Lulu's bilateral tibial hemimelia. The feet are flipped inward and upward.
Is this low quality of life?

America is governed by a religion of death. Moloch is god and abortion is the worship ritual. It is the primary religion of feminism.

For nearly 50 years Christians have been fighting back against Roe v. Wade. The battle lines have been drawn with infanticide on the left and a nearly complete ban on the right. The stage is being set for a Supreme Court showdown. The result of this showdown could be a multi-generational inflection point even more important than the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement.


Consider the power of images. Pro-life supporters show pictures of aborted and unborn babies. They use memes. Some of us use images of our own children.

My adopted daughter has Bilateral Tibial Hemimelia, affecting about 1 in 2 million. In America, Doctors would have recommended that she be aborted. They would say that her deformities were grave and she would have a poor quality of life, that her genetic condition may indicate a weak heart, and that her medical treatments would be a financial and emotional drag on both family and society.


My daughter has above-average intelligence and is a natural leader. She can now walk, run, and do cart-wheels. Her heart is fine. She has never been a drag on us. She is a beautiful person, full of life. Her life has value.

Mark and Natalie Weaver’s daughter Sophia has Rett syndrome and various other problems. She is physically disfigured and has had 30 surgeries. Her life has value. Their daughter’s image was used in a tweet advocating coerced abortion and they were told that their daughter should die and be put her out of her misery. Natalie Weaver is an activist feminist, yet even she can see the destructiveness and hatred of the religion of death when it hits her personally, even if she misjudges the cause. Dehumanizing those with disabilities goes hand-in-hand with dehumanizing the unborn. The inevitable result is death.


Brother Boxer recently criticized me for insulting, lying, and being ineffectual:

“Why would I indulge someone with such a history of bad-faith arguments? Go do something to reclaim the Christianity of 100 years ago, rather than insulting and bearing false-witness against men on the internet.”

I took a couple weeks off to consider this. I regret that my behavior has not been Christ-like. I’m not sure if I can improve the quality of conversation or be more effective, despite my deep desire to do so. As such, I have been strongly considering giving up blogging entirely to avoid causing more harm than good. I’m not even sure if I should try to bring back Christianity. Perhaps mainstream Christianity should just be allowed to wither and die.

Regardless, there is one thing that Christians should be doing.


Throughout all of recorded history it is thought that as many as 1 billion people have died in wars. It is estimated that almost 2 billion persons have been aborted in the last four decades. Abortion is now humankind’s leading cause of death.

For all the arguments against Christianity—legitimate and illegitimate—abortion stands apart. It is the greatest evil humankind has ever wrought. If there is a problem of evil that Christianity needs to respond to, it is abortion. Moreover, abortion may not be the sole facilitator of feminism, but it is a major contributor. Thus, fighting abortion fights feminism and its fruits (e.g. frivorce). It won’t bring back historical Christianity, but it’s a necessary prerequisite.

 The ritual of frivolous divorce results in the death of marriage and family. Similarly, the rituals of promiscuity and contraception prevent the formation of marriage and family, the lifeblood of society. The ritual of censorship is the death of freedom.

Contrast this with the life of forced prostitution she likely would have had in China.

Why Christianity Redux

After asserting that Christianity is full of hate and that God silently approves, Brother Boxer implored Brother Earl and myself to abandon Christianity.

“You guys should consider converting to something else. You really aren’t Christians, and the Christians don’t deserve you, anyway.”

A few Brothers took issue with Boxer’s categorization of Christianity as a hateful and evil religion with the approval of God. They claimed that many Christians are No True Christians.

While Boxer declined to give us a sensible alternative to Christianity, no alternative is needed.  In truth, Christianity is operating as designed. We most certainly should not abandon Christianity. In order to show and explain this, we have to examine the roots of the religion. Consider the following claims:

  1. The Universe had a beginning and a Creator.
  2. Life was designed.
  3. Jesus really existed.
  4. Jesus died and was resurrected.

The first and second are arguments of science, logic, and philosophy. The third and fourth are arguments of history. Together these arguments bypass the majority of the Jewish folk religion as irrelevant, while showing the authority and significance of Jesus. In doing so Christianity is established as a religion with a concrete, Big Bang-like origin—not an arbitrary folk religion subject to the whims of its adherents or cultural shifts.

In order to answer “Why Christianity?” one must consider the words of Jesus, its founder.

“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

The way is ‘narrow’ in that following Jesus involves trials, suffering, and a strenuous effort to accept. Indeed, this was promised in spades.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Perhaps suffering is the reason why there will be so few followers of Jesus. Yet, if you find suffering, you will find the followers of Jesus loving.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It’s a bitter pill that those who love must suffer. It may sound trite and clichéd, but the reason the followers of Jesus persist is because love is more powerful than suffering. While physics has four fundamental forces, Christianity has one: love.

But what about all of those who have corrupted the teachings? This is expected.

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.


Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In summary, Jesus taught the following:

  • The religion he was founding would never end.
  • The religion would be corrupted, especially as time progressed.
  • The religious faithful would be few.
  • The religious would be characterized by (a) love and (b) suffering and persecution.

By virtue of his resurrection, Jesus had full authority to set the terms of his religion. Why then is anyone surprised that the religion he founded has turned out as expected?

When I look around I see the corruption, same as anyone else who cares to see. I also see the faithful few, characterized by their suffering and their love. Yet I won’t abandon ship—it isn’t sinking. I take the label of Christian because the Christ is my master, not because of what anyone else says or does. For better or worse, our actions—not labels—tell the story of who we are and where our allegiance lies. I’m okay with that.

† For sake of argument

Beneficios del matrimonio

Marital Satisfaction 2.PNG

It is unwise for a man or woman to enter marriage without understanding how marriage will impact their happiness. The majority of married life will be relatively unhappy. Most persons will need to be married for nearly 4 decades before they possibly get that spark back that they had at the beginning.

Many women are taught by the feminist society that they can (and should) divorce if they become unhaaaaaaaaaapy!! Accordingly, the highest divorce rates occur during those early years, as marital happiness steadily declines.


Marital Satisfaction 1.PNG

Without a doubt, raising children is a stressful, difficult experience.

Merely having a child results in an instantaneous drop in marital happiness. Interrupted sleep, poop, noise, and sickness are not conducive to sanity. It helps to have a stay at home mom, but if she works then finding a babysitter is stressful and costly.

It gets a little easier once the children enter school, although you’ll have a busy schedule with sports and other extra-curricular activities. Unfortunately this is only a temporary improvement. Kids become teenagers. Anyone who has ever met or been a teenager understands the horror of this.

It turns out that children are expensive and wives like spending money. So men work hard to provide their family, working to advance their careers. Husbands and fathers are abnormally driven and successful at this.

You’ll come home at the end of every stressful 10-hour day exhausted to find your wife exhausted from caring for your 3 noisy children. Dinner will need to be made, diapers changed, vacuuming done, laundry folded, lunches packed, and lawn mowed. Guess who has to do most of that so she can rest? Good luck if she’s pregnant.

But then you will get a call from work. Do you like that big pay raise you just got? Duty calls. You can say goodbye to having sex with her tonight. Maybe you can schedule it for next Wednesday.

You’ll find your groove, learning to work on less sleep and limited appreciation even as you get older and your body becomes less capable. Yet everything is okay, right?

Then the roof starts to leak and needs to be replaced. The AC unit just died. The car’s automatic transmission blew out (should have driven manual!). Jimmy needs surgery. The high school quarterback just got Susie pregnant. Now you got laid off and the wife has to go back to work.

The financial burdens will pile up and it will be rough.

When was the last time we even went to bed together, let alone had sex? I can’t even remem….zzzzzzzz.


Marriage is a truly terrible proposition. It consists of tons of work with future prospects that 50% will never make it to. Some have compared it to voluntary slavery. Perhaps that is accurate.

There is only one thing worse than being married…

Marital Satisfaction 3.PNG

…and that is being unmarried.


This post is tongue-in-cheek. Marriage can look pretty bad if it is presented that way. Depending on what you read and who you talk to, you might get the impression that marriage offers nothing to a man, that MGTOW is the way to happiness. Perhaps for some it is.

Life is hard but having someone at your side makes things just that much better.

We owe it to men to find a way to make marriage viable, to open up its benefits to more men. Part of that is informing them of the pitfalls, to help them choose more intelligently. This blog does an excellent job of that. Yet just as important is acknowledging the benefits and describing how to achieve them realistically. I will continue to do so.

The Mythical Unicorn

A rare unicorn, spotted in Costa Rica

Brother Ballista has made the claim that Marriage Is A Feminist Tool Used Against Men. The underlying (and popular) premise is that All Women Are Like That—feminists to the core. Marriage is their tool and should be avoided. It follows that there are no unicorns, no Not All Women Are Like That.

Recently Brother Jason noted:

“Some men MGTOW until they do meet the unicorn and become like the men out there with prefect marriages.”

Such men avoid marriage until they evaluate the risks, weigh the options, and choose carefully. They select that unicorn* or no one at all. This reflects a common—perhaps even normative—way of thinking in the ‘sphere.

This is a solid plan, but is it realistic? Can or should we expect the majority of men to ignore the biological imperative to pair up and have children? I don’t think so and I am not alone. Considering other options is emphatically not man-shaming, a call to “man up”, or a warrant to enter marriage blindly.

Publicly, I will describe my strengths and weaknesses in marriage and my wife’s strengths, but I don’t specifically discuss her weaknesses. This gives the false appearance that I have a “perfect marriage” to a NAWALT.

The (N)AWALT meme essentially focuses on the negatives without considering the positives. The NAWALT (the perfect woman with no negatives) and the AWALT (the always evil every woman) are caricatures. Real women, just like men, have strengths and weaknesses.

The irony is that it’s trivial to prove—both anecdotally and as a group—that many women make great wives. It’s also trivial to prove that many women destroy the lives of men. Examples of these, and those in between, are easily found across age, religion, and ethnicity.

There is a place for discussing the negatives, but no relationship can survive a primary focus on negatives. Focusing on the benefits changes your perspective. I don’t have a NAWALT, I have a relationship with many different categories of benefits that far outweigh the downsides. We work through our problems, but we live through our strengths.

My wife has held certain feminist-inspired viewpoints. Do they end our relationship? Of course not. She can have her own opinions and it isn’t the end of the world. Compromise is a vital marital component. She’s not a unicorn because she’s perfect, she’s a unicorn because we don’t toss out those benefits because of a few negatives. We actually like and appreciate each other.

Marriage has always consisted of two imperfect people pairing up and finding a way to make it work. This didn’t begin or end with feminism. You try hard to find the right woman, but the work doesn’t end there. The relationship is dynamic. She’ll change and you’ll change. The latter is hard to accept.

Compromise, trade-offs, and changes cannot safely be avoided. Feminism has taught women that if they are unhappy or do not have perfection, then they should bail out and look for it elsewhere. This cancer is just as bad when men embrace it in their search for women. Goose and gander.

Throwing away the basis for society—marriage and family—because women are not perfect is worse than misguided. Throwing away the basis for society because it is difficult to find a good match is equally mistaken. It’s smart to be selective about who to marry, but avoiding marriage entirely is not a solution. You can’t destroy civilization to save it.

You marry because the benefits you receive will outweigh the negatives you’ll choose to accept. Expecting a marriage without negatives is unrealistic. That unicorn you married will have spots and blemishes. It turns out that this is okay. The unicorn was always a myth anyway.

* Or get lucky

 Ballista’s assertions to the contrary are mistaken.

 Contrast this with those men and women who advocate and hold absolute, uncompromising, binary positions (e.g. All women this, every women that; no this or that is possible).