Never marry a woman of a more liberal strain within your tradition; watch out for those that do end up in your fold because of foolish brethren

(Note: this post mostly applies to Protestants, IMO, but perhaps there may be analogues within other Christian traditions, I don’t know.)

Something I’ve observed a number of brothers falling prey to: marrying a woman not from their own particular denomination, but from a more liberal one from the same tradition.

For instance, a brother from, say, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, meeting a nice fellow Lutheran girl, but one from within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, deciding to pursue a relationship with her. (Or, to use a Canadian equivalent, a brother from the Lutheran Church – Canada, pursuing a Lutheran gal from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada.)

After all, she’s a fellow Lutheran, right? As long as she’s not like some tattooed slut priestess like Nadia Bolz-Weber, surely, it doesn’t matter, right?

Wrong.

It always matters.

Might as well be unequally yoked, frankly.

Because unless she converted to your more confessional, conservative, traditionalist Protestant denomination of the same tradition as her own, prior to meeting you, she’s only doing it so she can be with you.

Which means she brings all her baggage with her – all her more progressive, anti-traditionalist POV with her, into your flock.

That makes her a Trojan horse. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

And she’s hardly likely to be particularly submissive and deferential, compliant towards you.

Don’t do it.

And keep on your guard against such women brought into your fold by foolish brethren.

Don’t trust them unless they appear to have had a full change of heart and mind.

Which they won’t have.

Wolves in sheep’s clothing.

They’ll push their husband and your denomination in a more progressive direction.

Keep your eyes on them, always. Watch for promotion of heretical ideologies, or a push for more ‘peace’ rather than conflict against heresy / societal promotion of prog ideals / policies.

Advertisements

 

Interesting thread re: online dating and its impact

(For ease of reading, I’ve only included the first tweet itself; I’ve simply copied all the rest of the thread save the last tweet which was absurd.)

There’s a really compelling story and thesis relating to the rapidly changing dynamics between genders (one of our big ones) but journalists kind of mailing it in for clicks with this piece. https://t.co/KezSuLezBE

— MUGATU (@SuperMugatu) October 6, 2019

1. The author has not explored enough variables to understand what is happening, but the observation that SOMETHING is happening is correct. The pure academic achievement -> economic earning power delta argument largely debunked when adjusted for economic value of specific majors

2. These are difficult subjects because politics almost always invade before you can finish a complete logical argument. Have to square the “women way under represented in STEM, finance, etc” narrative with “omg women getting so many degrees men just can’t keep up” narrative

3. You have to, and I know this is a meme, actually use some game theory. What’s really changed? ONLINE DATING That’s the answer to everything. That’s the market, these are all pricing inputs. But most people don’t know how to model the market because they back fit to their bias
4. Key to modeling online dating is cohort matching. ZERO 1 on 1 matching edge ever identified by internal data scientists at any online dating site. They don’t even advertise that so much. “Best match” suggestion is a proxy for “you two are both desperate and logging on a lot”
5. Relevant cohorts: M/F x A: 18-25yo B: 26-30yo C: 31-35yo D: 35+ yo (F, A) is the “price maker” Selects at will from all other cohorts Online dating = zero downside Zero downside = rationally will look for right tail outcomes
6. Men typically only date younger Women typically only date taller Married or committed ppl removed from pool So if (F, A) dates, let’s say, men from 20-60 in NYC. As F goes from 20 -> 30, dating pool shrinks 25% *before* adjusting for marriage, etc

7. More education = more time Ex ante woman with more education is older, thus set is already shrunk Younger women have free zero strike calls and no opportunity costs. Brutal competitive dynamic.
8. Online dating = first time EVER IN HUMAN HISTORY that women have unlimited zero risk access to potential mates. Think about that. HUGE implications. But have M/F biology fully adapted? Hell no. So we have heuristic sets, particularly for women, that price a lot of risk.

   

   
9. Online dating = women in control of dating for the first time ever. But that also means women on women competition goes +++ because agency is +++ Women cohorts competing against one another. Men just price takers. Nothing to do with actual academic achievement. Clear in data
10. This is also why $MTCH is the strongest network effect there is. They provide the agency to the women, the women price the market and can’t without it, and men will go wherever the women are.
11. All of this also means particularly in metro areas the selection risk curve for women as they go from 25 years to 35 years old is insane (like 60% reduction in opportunities AND adverse selection within cohort), which is the delta that’s being misidentified as academic/career df
12. It also means men are on average less desirable because women have both zero opportunity cost and anchoring / decency bias during the age curve, which is why we’re seeing this Lower demand for avg male, women rationally holding out for top decile outcomes due to zero costs

    
13. Compare the following two charts and you’ll see the inflection and why this is starting to manifest. And I’d note ONLY JUST STARTING. THE defining topic of our era. Complete restructuring human mating structures because women are in control wrt game theory first time ever.

    

    
14. What changed? Age cohort tipping point, smart phone and app normalization, culture hit inflection point. We are seeing this in emerging and frontier markets. There’s a reason $SNAP dominates in Saudi Arabia. Why? Women can access men w no risk. Tinder, TanTan,etc in Asia too
15. Online dating is the lever big enough to lift the world with regards to gender power. The impacts in frontier markets will be insane. We are already seeing it. & Like any situation where costs/frictions are removed from a market and pricing becomes efficient, will suck for many
16. All of the pushbacks to this thesis actually support it. The quibbling about risk, the “but women don’t price theta”, etc all just plugs that further make those sub cohorts less valuable on the market. No one likes paranoid people, dudes bitching abt women Losers cite edge cases
17. Utility vs Risk in terms of anchored cultural norms, fear of unknowns. Over time, Tinder is normalized. Starts w guys on tinder. More aggressive women go on tinder. Game theory forces everyone on over time. Then power dynamic flips when women adjust to unlimited selection.

    
18. Cultural barriers: – normalized enough where women can use actual photos of themselves? In most EMs, most pics are cartoons, etc. – women viewing platform as their choice vs prey for men. Psyc of fear based on oppressive culture Fix? Time Tech barriers: – smartphone Game over

    
19. “Met through friends” is the most important trend re: culture/psych Shows people pricing in risk of intros re disrupting social circles. Intros historically = positive skew due to alliance value. With unlimited mate selection, now negative skew behavior. Being eliminated FAST.

    
20. IF you believe control of women is a major prime mover in inequality, history of colonialism, etc. (I think this is true) then the implications of a tech platform that breaks the wheel here are hard to wrap your head around.
21. Online dating may well be what finally drives FAST and PERMANENT female power across the board, economic growth, societal change. Cultural as well as technological leapfrogging for Emerging and Frontier markets.

 

A modest proposal?

Somebody’s surely read Swift, but doesn’t get satire…

One of Ocasio-Cortez's constituents loses her mind over climate change during AOC's townhall, claims we only have a few months left: "We got to start eating babies! We don't have enough time! … We have to get rid of the babies! … We need to eat the babies!" pic.twitter.com/uVmOnboluI

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 3, 2019

 

St. Greta

Climate activist Greta Thunberg proclaimed “Successor of Christ” by Church of Sweden | Watts Up With That? https://t.co/7Lm92yFRXx

— Tom Nelson (@tan123) September 30, 2019

 

Now they’re pushing sexagenarian ‘new’ models upon us, and celebrating them

BBC gushes over Scot woman who starts modelling career at 60:

Gillean McLeod only had her first professional photos taken when she was in her early 50s and her career as a model did not take off until a swimsuit shoot at the age of 60.
The photo for an H&M campaign shows Gillean in a simple black swimsuit, wearing no make-up and with her long white hair hanging down naturally.
When the clothes retailer posted the image on Instagram it quickly went viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of likes.

Yeah, but not by young straight men, I’m sure!

 

Churchian woman public school teacher supports woke/SJW censorship of unPC old books

Burned any good books lately, Melissa? pic.twitter.com/EX64Za0pMw

— Glen 🇦🇺 (@Glen1788) September 20, 2019

Rod Dreher actually has a good post about this, here, and a related second post here.

Please don’t send your children to publicly-funded state indoctrination centres.

 

Combat ready?

Affirmative action for female combat pilots is a terrible idea. pic.twitter.com/FI2ucOPLDr

— Taylor (Liberty 1 Commander) (@s_decatur) September 17, 2019

Women in military combat roles is still hilarious to me. I mean it's genuinely funny. Imagine trying to explain it to anyone prior to a few decades ago. "We need women in combat! – LOL. Why? Are all the men dead already?"

— GenPattonsGhost (@GenPattons) September 17, 2019