• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Hello Guest,
    We have upgraded the forum, if you notice anything wrong or have any suggestion, please do write to us in this thread

MGTOW and Neomasculinity

Indie

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#41
Or perhaps appreciate someone being upfront :)
Of course I appreciate someone being upfront. That doesn't mean I have to appreciate them being a selfish, immature, and unreliable narcissist with no understanding of love :)
 

Indie

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#42
He may very well be in it until death does him all sort of stuff :) the problem is what if you aren't :) the laws are on your side and he is screwed. A prenup helps a little in righting unfair and biased laws. You don't need a prenup because you already have the unfair advantage.

You think the 50% or more of marriages ending in divorce were in it to get divorced? :) They probably were saying the same thing you said above, until they got divorced
The laws aren't to women's advantage as much as you claim. If the woman happens to have more money than the man, she has to give him half, as well.

If there are laws that discriminate against men, they should be reviewed and changed. The answer is not to redefine love and marriage.
 

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
#43
There is no contradiction. You cannot control weather or not you receive love; therefore, "receiving love" cannot be a goal to strive towards.

The only thing you can control and, thus, have as a goal, is to give love.

What the quote is saying is exactly what I'm saying: when each individual's focus is on giving love, things become ordered. When individuals' focus is on calculating how much love they receive, things become disordered.

This does not mean you pick any random person to partner with and let them abuse you while you're trying to love them. It means you choose someone who has the same, healthy understanding of love as described in the previous paragraph.
You still didn't get the funny contradiction :) I quoted it for you it's there :)
 

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
#45
You're the one who is not getting it...
Indie says: "For the record, love is not a word, it's a verb. It's not something you get, it's something you do"

Indie uses this signature: "A woman's dignity is closely connected with the love which she receives...and the love which she gives in return."
 

Indie

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#46
Indie says: "For the record, love is not a word, it's a verb. It's not something you get, it's something you do"

Indie uses this signature: "A woman's dignity is closely connected with the love which she receives...and the love which she gives in return."
You've never heard of verbs that can act as abstract nouns?

Concrete nouns are people, places, or things that we would experience with our five senses. The abstract class is the opposite - we can never experience these nouns according to our senses. If a noun is abstract, it describes something you cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell.

Sometimes it can be difficult to recognize when the noun is abstract because there are a number of words that can function in different ways. For example, some words might function as verbs in some cases and abstract nouns in other cases. Love and taste are two examples.

  • I love my husband. [In this sentence, the word love expresses an action and is therefore acting as a verb.]
  • Send them my love. [In this sentence, the word love functions as an abstract noun because it is a thing that exists beyond the five senses.

Where does love fit more?
  • Noun: a word that refers to a person, place, thing, event, substance or quality e.g.'nurse', 'cat', 'party', 'oil' and 'poverty'.
  • Verb: a word or phrase that describes an action, condition or experience e.g. 'run', 'look' and 'feel'.
If you still don't get it after this, your thinking is not sophisticated enough. Please don't waste my time :)
 
#47
If i may, i don't see any contradiction in Indie's input, that is when one puts JP2's quote and Indie's quote in their actual (Christian) context.

This is the original JP2 quote with the missing part included in between -- : "A woman's dignity is closely connected with the love which she receives - by the very reason of her feminity - , it is likewise connected with the love which she gives in return."

If we (truly) love, it's because God loves us first; we are feminine in receiving and (then) giving/offering love, and this is 'receiving love not by the world (here, i believe, is Indie's point), but by God'; To the world we are indeed giving extraordinary love without having received it first, but to us, Christians, this is clearly only possible by virtue of God loving us first and us receiving and then offering that love to others, that is, by virtue of our feminine relation to God, by us/humans/the Church/... being the bride and God the bridegroom, etc.

In other words, in terms of mere human beings, pious women, with Mary being the lead-example, rather than pious men, are naturally more apt to offer God-received love in and to the world.
 
Last edited:

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
#48
You've never heard of verbs that can act as abstract nouns?

Concrete nouns are people, places, or things that we would experience with our five senses. The abstract class is the opposite - we can never experience these nouns according to our senses. If a noun is abstract, it describes something you cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell.

Sometimes it can be difficult to recognize when the noun is abstract because there are a number of words that can function in different ways. For example, some words might function as verbs in some cases and abstract nouns in other cases. Love and taste are two examples.

  • I love my husband. [In this sentence, the word love expresses an action and is therefore acting as a verb.]
  • Send them my love. [In this sentence, the word love functions as an abstract noun because it is a thing that exists beyond the five senses.

Where does love fit more?
  • Noun: a word that refers to a person, place, thing, event, substance or quality e.g.'nurse', 'cat', 'party', 'oil' and 'poverty'.
  • Verb: a word or phrase that describes an action, condition or experience e.g. 'run', 'look' and 'feel'.
If you still don't get it after this, your thinking is not sophisticated enough. Please don't waste my time :)
Lol, you must think I'm an idiot :)
 

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
#49
If i may, i don't see any contradiction in Indie's input, that is when one puts JP2's quote and Indie's quote in their actual (Christian) context.

This is the original JP2 quote with the missing part included in between -- : "A woman's dignity is closely connected with the love which she receives - by the very reason of her feminity - , it is likewise connected with the love which she gives in return."

If we (truly) love, it's because God loves us first; we are feminine in receiving and (then) giving/offering love, and this is 'receiving love not by the world (here, i believe, is Indie's point), but by God'; To the world we are indeed giving extraordinary love without having received it first, but to us, Christians, this is clearly only possible by virtue of God loving us first and us receiving and then offering that love to others, that is, by virtue of our feminine relation to God, by us/humans/the Church/... being the bride and God the bridegroom, etc.

In other words, in terms of mere human beings, pious women, with Mary being the lead-example, rather than pious men, are naturally more apt to offer God-received love in and to the world.
I wonder why would Indie skip "by the very reason of her femininity" from the quote. It's only a few more words, and the quote isn't that long anyway. I can't imagine it is only for the sake of brevity. Why do you think she may have chosen to replace these few words by "..."?

What do you mean by "our feminine relationship with God"?
 
#50
I wonder why would Indie skip "by the very reason of her femininity" from the quote. It's only a few more words, and the quote isn't that long anyway. I can't imagine it is only for the sake of brevity. Why do you think she may have chosen to replace these few words by "..."?

What do you mean by "our feminine relationship with God"?
I'm fairly certain it was a prudential judgement from her part for fear that the otherwise delicate quote might get easily misunderstood/misinterpreted given the mediocre state our today's society, otherwise, she could have just discarded
the entire quote and not set it (and its author) as her forum signature. I believe that those intending on not to understand (or truthfully tackle) that which challenges their core beliefs will always find a way (are always free) to reject/misinterpret/twist what could possibly be the truth, no matter the effort those challenging them put to the opposite.

By "our feminine relationship with God" I meant our feminine aspect of our relationship with God. Here is P.Kreeft expounding on that statement:

"As a man comes into a woman's body from without to impregnate her, God creates the universe from without and performs miracles in it from without. He also calls to man, reveals himself and his law to man from without."
"... He came out of hiding and acted. All other religions were man's search for God. Judaism (and Christianity, its fulfillment) was God's search for man. Therefore, religious experience for a Jew was fundamentally response, not initiative. There were no yoga methods, no ways to push God's buttons. God initiated, man responded."
"... And in it, the soul is spiritually impregnated by God, not vice versa. That is the ultimate reason why God must always be he to us, never she. Religion is essentially heterosexual and therefore fruitful."
"The new birth —our salvation— comes from above, from without, from transcendence. We do not spiritually impregnate ourselves with
salvation or divine life any more than we physically impregnate ourselves. Modernism, humanism, and naturalism amount to spiritual
auto-eroticism, spiritual masturbation."
"The Church can no more be fruitful without being impregnated by her Divine Husband than a woman can be impregnated with new life
without a man. Feminists who resent this fact, resent this fact, and thus tend to resent facts as such, including their own nature
as feminine."
"Deny God's transcendence, which is the condition for his revelation, and you get a lesbian Church, declaring independence from God
as The Other, God as transcendent, God as masculine, believing herself to be already innately in possession of divine life, that is,
denying Original Sin, or trying to impregnate herself horizontally by a kind of perverse auto-eroticism, narcissism, and self-
idolatry. Lesbians, like gays, simply cannot make life, and the lesbian spirit of Womynchurch will never be able to make life
without God the Father. The Christian saints and mystics have constantly used the scriptural and authoritative heterosexual metaphor
of God as Husband to the Church and to the soul."
 
#51
It has everything to do with it. Of course you don't see it...just like you don't see how your approach to relationships is the source of your relationship problems.



I don't believe in divorce. So I would never marry someone who wants to sign a prenup right before saying "until death do us part."

I would also never marry a narcissist who thinks the family resources belong to him, as if my work and contributions to the family are worthless.

I would also never marry a shallow, delusional brat who thinks that "changing appearances" are a reason for divorce. Newsflash: we are all going to get old.
I don't care about your views, as you don't want to care about mine. So that discussion is pretty much over. You said so yourself, you don't care about my views. And that's fine.

My question is simple: do you think alimony payments have a place in today's world or not?
 
#52
@joseph_lubnan
Have you watched The Red Pill by Cassie Jay? She's a feminist film maker, but decided to make a documentary about men's issues. I opened an Amazon Prime account yesterday and you get access to Amazon video as part of the deal. I was scrolling through the movies and randomly came across it. Watched 3/4 of it so far and I'm amazed at how much I didn't know. Really eye opening documentary. I would ask Indie to watch it as well, but we both know what the response will be. Anyway, give it a watch if you haven't. Really eye opening.

Here's the trailer:
 

Indie

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#53
I wonder why would Indie skip "by the very reason of her femininity" from the quote. It's only a few more words, and the quote isn't that long anyway. I can't imagine it is only for the sake of brevity. Why do you think she may have chosen to replace these few words by "..."?

What do you mean by "our feminine relationship with God"?
It's because I look very masculine and that part offends me.
 

Indie

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#54
I don't care about your views, as you don't want to care about mine. So that discussion is pretty much over. You said so yourself, you don't care about my views. And that's fine.
I'm pretty sleepy so my memory might not be reliable. Where did I say that?
 

Isabella

The Queen Of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
#55
I think it is valid to explore why this is becoming a trend.

I want equality for men, and attention to mens' rights and mens' issues, but I would never give up on women as I think they can be reformed, they too are God's children :)

To these guys I say have some faith, that's why god created prenuptial agreements :)
These men are not swearing off women for any valid reasons or concerns they are behaving like idiots! And while I'm at it your gender is not under attack! Asking for your rights as a man also means taking your share of the responsibility at home, and that starts with caring for your children and your wife!

I stand by everything I wrote in that post you quoted! I started a thread around this basic idea of men's rights because I was genuinely interested in the subject! Instead what I ended up realising is that the groups asking for these rights are just upset patriarchy is slowly dying! So yeah they can go f*ck themselves!
 

Indie

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#56
If i may, i don't see any contradiction in Indie's input, that is when one puts JP2's quote and Indie's quote in their actual (Christian) context.

This is the original JP2 quote with the missing part included in between -- : "A woman's dignity is closely connected with the love which she receives - by the very reason of her feminity - , it is likewise connected with the love which she gives in return."

If we (truly) love, it's because God loves us first; we are feminine in receiving and (then) giving/offering love, and this is 'receiving love not by the world (here, i believe, is Indie's point), but by God'; To the world we are indeed giving extraordinary love without having received it first, but to us, Christians, this is clearly only possible by virtue of God loving us first and us receiving and then offering that love to others, that is, by virtue of our feminine relation to God, by us/humans/the Church/... being the bride and God the bridegroom, etc.

In other words, in terms of mere human beings, pious women, with Mary being the lead-example, rather than pious men, are naturally more apt to offer God-received love in and to the world.
Precisely. Thank you.

For anyone interested in learning more about this perspective, the quote is from JPII's apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem.

Mulieris Dignitatem (August 15, 1988) | John Paul II
 

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
#58
These men are not swearing off women for any valid reasons or concerns they are behaving like idiots! And while I'm at it your gender is not under attack! Asking for your rights as a man also means taking your share of the responsibility at home, and that starts with caring for your children and your wife!

I stand by everything I wrote in that post you quoted! I started a thread around this basic idea of men's rights because I was genuinely interested in the subject! Instead what I ended up realising is that the groups asking for these rights are just upset patriarchy is slowly dying! So yeah they can go f*ck themselves!
Shouldn't society by genuinely trying to understand and help these men, they obviously need help. Or is it only worthy to marshal up resources to help with women issues? Equality dear, equality.
 

joseph_lubnan

Legendary Member
#59
@joseph_lubnan
Have you watched The Red Pill by Cassie Jay? She's a feminist film maker, but decided to make a documentary about men's issues. I opened an Amazon Prime account yesterday and you get access to Amazon video as part of the deal. I was scrolling through the movies and randomly came across it. Watched 3/4 of it so far and I'm amazed at how much I didn't know. Really eye opening documentary. I would ask Indie to watch it as well, but we both know what the response will be. Anyway, give it a watch if you haven't. Really eye opening.

Here's the trailer:
Yes there is a whole thread on this one, look it up :)