RIP - Chateau Heartiste - Archives are preserved! link updated

It was just a matter of time once he started naming them.

I was red pilled long before I first visited CH, but after reading his posts going to church was never the same again.

I am still a committed Christian, but it's a shame what has happened to masculinity in American Churches in today's times.

A lot of the younger generation doesn't even go to church, but I feel like those who do, the men are indistinguishable from your typical pajama boy millenial hipster. Churches no longer teach men to be men. They teach them to be effeminate, soft, emotionally weak manginas. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't even touched upon garbage like "man up and marry the slut, errr, I mean, born again virgin".

I went to the church my parents go to when I was home visiting them and too many male leaders of this church would get up there and talk to the congregation in soft high pitched voices like they were reading a book to a bunch of 3 year olds in a library. And the video announcements were done by 2 men who were just pathetic, soy face and everything.

I hadn't been there in a long time but recall thinking he was nuts to have that site on the free wordpress setup.

It's not terribly expensive to set it up on his own hosting where he wouldn't have to worry about it being pulled.

I only wish someone had turned me on to this before now.

I feel as if I missed something important.

quote:

---

"hater" i.e. a man not sufficiently embarrassed by his masculinity

---

Lol good stuff

I think you may be talking about a distortion of complementarianism. I'm sure there are plenty of so-called "Christian Leaders" who've done exactly what you describe. But I don't think the original intent of the concept is that sinister.

I don't want to link a "religious" site or mention the author's name (due to the ban of religion on this very site), but this is what I have always understood the term to mean and agree with it wholeheartedly:

quote:

---

What “Complementarian” Means The intention with the word “complementarian” is to locate our way of life between two kinds error: on the one side would be the abuses of women under male domination, and on the other side would be the negation of gender differences where they have beautiful significance. This means that, on the one hand, complementarians acknowledge and lament the history of abuses of women personally and systemically, and the present evils globally and locally in the exploitation and diminishing of women and girls. And, on the other hand, complementarians lament the feminist and egalitarian impulses that minimize G*d-given differences between men and women and dismantle the order G*d has designed for the flourishing of our life together. So complementarians resist the impulses of a chauvinistic, dominating, and abusive culture, on the one side, and the impulses of a sex-blind, gender-leveling, unisex culture, on the other side. And we take our stand between these two ways of life not because the middle ground is a safe place (which it is emphatically not), but because we think this is the good plan of G*d in the [Old Book] for men and women. “Very good,” as he said in Genesis 1.

---

quote:

---

In fact, I would say that the attempt by feminism to remedy the male abuse of women by nullifying gender differences backfires and produces millions of men that women cannot enjoy because of their unmanliness, or cannot endure because of their distorted, brutal manliness. In other words, if we don’t teach boys and girls about the truth and beauty and value of their differences, and how to live them out, those differences do not mature in healthy ways — but dysfunctional ways. And a generation of young adults comes into being who simply do not know what it means to be a mature man or a woman; and the cultural price we pay for that is enormous. The way I would like to approach this is to move from the general to the specific: a word about being human, an illustration about being male and female, and then a specific text to show the [Old Bookical] roots.

---

CH articulated something we all feel, but, at least in my case, couldn’t articulate.

Not to get too personal, but my best relationships have been with foreigners. And specifically Catholics, or Orthodox Christians. It’s not so much the faith*, but that these societies haven’t experienced the self destructive process that we have.

It’s very unlikely that I will marry an American at this point.

* I will day these cultures are so much warmer and friendlier than Protestant ones. And that’s certainly part of it.

Good stuff!

With all the abortion talk right now, this quote really
hits hard:

quote:

---

my opposition to abortion does not (primarily) stem from moral reasons, it stems from objectively following the power dynamics involved and the latent purpose for abortion. Abortion is eugenics; it is the ceding of any claim to influencing paternity that men may have had for the past 100,000 years of human evolution.

So, why will women fight tooth and nail for the ‘right’ to free and safe abortion over the course of multiple generations? Why is the right to end her (and the father’s) child’s life in utero such an imperative for women?

Ask women and the feminist boilerplate answer is always “My body, my choice!“, but why is it so important to cut men entirely out of the reproductive process? What is the motivation for legally disenfranchising men from even 1% of a say in a child that is at least half his genetic legacy? This is also one of the greatest of offenses to women; that a man might have some control over women’s bodies. “Hands off my uterus!” that too is another rallying cry, but why is it such an abhorrent thought that men might have some influence in who gets born and who doesn’t?

---

the idea that abortion is not so much about helping women, but punishing men, is interesting to me.