It is very hard to articulate this to sensitive people, but men are much better fathers than women and it's unfortunate how easily they are dismissed and abandoned in families.
That's because there's no real need to make money when unmarried. Exceptions occur, of course, but most men are content with a cheap bed in an empty apartment and a really nice computer. The only real reason to make more money than necessary for immediate comfort and to remain moderately comfortable in retirement, is to impress and/or support women and children.
Before I had kids I was pretty happy with my job and income, once my Wife stopped working, and was at home looking after my first child and all the added expenses of being a Father I was suddenly provided with the motivation to advance and earn more. I probably would have eventually but having kids was the biggest jumpstart to my professional advancement.
I was like that as well but now that my kids are entering the teenage years, I’ve pulled back and want to work for as much money as I can for as little work as possible, and as much work from him e& vacation as possible. For convenience? No. To be ready at every turn to counter the demonic society reflected now in kids movies, schools, and society in general. I’ve lived in the “safe” neighborhoods of leftist states but even now in a borderline conservative state, the lack of biblical & moral foundation has turned even the nicest of people into evidence of Romans’ description that God gave them up to depraved minds. All the companies I’ve worked at over the past 10 years have jumped on board with ESG and DEI garbage and they all celebrate shame month. I have no motivation at all over these past few years beyond the bare minimum. I care more about being available, counseling, guiding, and vacationing with my family. Power, position, money and wild living are like vomit in my mouth.
Imagine falling in love with a man, marrying him, and then having daughters that you teach to hate that daddy… That’s what I heard from that mom. My husband took care of me and my girls so they can grow up and never want that for themselves. Ugh! Shame on her.
I love that you are watching these old clips of tv talk shows. I have been down that rabbit hole recently watching a terrible clip of a gentleman from Jews for Jesus debating an "anti-missionary" who converted from Judaism to Christianity and back. Indont know if the episode is horribly clipped but the gospel is mostly abscent and it left me yearning for a quality defense of the faith on 90s morning TV. Phil had some doosies even though he was a flaming liberal. I commend him for this episode.
I think Canon was doing just fine before this push. I really don't see what this is except a distraction from positions which have previously been better articulated by Wilson and others in his camp. Moreover, his Gilder's definition of sexual inferiority or superiority are just dumb. They're as dumb as the complementarian insistence that men and women are equals. Men and women have separate roles in regard to the question of sexuality and neither is superior or inferior, nor are the equal. The need to order disparate things is a child's game and it's a stupid distraction from things which actually matter. Moreover, his sociological arguments for the basis of marriage fall flat. The real reasons are in Genesis and they're far more compelling than anything Gilder offers here. I find him to be somewhat like Jordan Peterson. I agree with his claims and observations, but his logical "arguments" are often sophistry predicated on evolutionary storytelling and/or sociological speculation.
"Moreover, his sociological arguments for the basis of marriage fall flat...are often sophistry predicated on...sociological speculation" I see what you're getting at, but don't entirely agree. It's not just "speculation". He's accumulated an abundance of evidence and arrived at reasonable conclusions based on that evidence. As Wilson points out, he's not so much that he's trying to persuade them as much as he's telling them what is. You say, "I agree with his claims and observations". This is because they align with the Bible, which is your and my foundation. However, Christians tend to admire when someone like Answers in Genesis discovers physical evidence that aligns with God's Word. Why not in the social sciences, too, if conducted with integrity? Scientific observation, honestly studied, points to God and gives Him glory (just as a observations about logic would). It is possible, as fallen humans, to misinterpret the data (as William Lane Craig does with evolution), but that doesn't discount all honest study of the sciences. By the way, George Gilder eventually rejected evolution and indicated that people need to be taught Christianity, though I don't know the extent of his beliefs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gilder Next, there's something profound in observing in the natural order that it aligns with what God says is the natural order. It's the kind of revelation spoken of in Romans one that makes us accountable. When I was 6 or younger (in a non-Christian home), I remember being heavily burdened with the thought, "Why am I so bad? Why do I want to break my parents rules? Why are my parents so bad? Why do they break the rules they give me (cursing, perverse, violent, etc...)? What's wrong with all of us? Why is it chaotic here?" When I asked the adults in my life about my own evil, they would say, "Oh, you're a good boy. Everyone is mischievous now again. You'll mature out of it". I was so dejected by this non-answer. In school, I was always told how good I was. I was also taught that we're born "blank slates". None of these satisfied what I had actually observed about human evil, though. It wasn't until I was forced to attend a Christian school at the age of 14 that I heard the clear gospel preached. The preacher explained original sin, the fall, the consequences of sin in this life and the next. His Bible-based explanation fit perfectly with my sociologically-observed concerns. But, he didn't just explain the foundation of my observations. He also explained the solution in who Christ is and what Christ did. Without me even knowing it throughout my childhood, God had been using my honest sociological observations to bring me unto Himself, even though I wasn't in pursuit of Him at all. I just didn't understand why reality was so bad. The Bible tells us who, what, when, where, and why. As a boy, I didn't realize it, but God was using his natural order to gradually draw me to Himself. Similarly, when someone tells the truth about reality, regardless of their views on God at the time, if someone else hears their observations and is drawn to the truth or have that truth clarified, God can use the same to draw that person. I dare say that Gilder positively influenced at least 1 person in that audience with his views about _what is_. Likewise, it's possible that Peterson's observations are helping him to get closer to saving faith than he would be otherwise. We'll see...
@@brandonbrandon2893 doubtless there is something of value in what Gilder is saying, in as much as he is recognizing the patriarchy in that men and women are different. That alone is shocking to the crowd here which were well discipled by the shrill feminism of 1970's America, which of course persists and has metastasized into various evils which destroy the home, family and ultimately society itself as we further atomize into individuals who are "me first and my happiness" vs. duty and serving ordained roles as prescribed in the Word. Still, I have to side with the critics of DW on the inexcusability of supporting Gilder here. If we support the passage which characterizes marriage and men's role in marriage in terms of Gilder's perception that the man needs marriage in order to keep civil. As opposed to saying man needs marriage because he was created to lead the household and love his wife like Christ loves the church. Well, where does that leave Christ if we accept Gilder's definitions and logical characterization of marriage ? What to take from Scripture's parallel of man and wife and the church and Christ ? Anyway, DW already had much better material on relationships which are far more grounded. I guess Gilder is a big deal to folks who are older than myself ( I was a toddler when this book came out ). So, perhaps the way to understand the publication is just in terms of extending the reach and audience of Canon. Someone told me that today... but, I think Doug really likes this Gilder fellow and at least buys into men entering the marriage relation in some sense similar to what Gilder describes with his "female sexual superiority". As I recall, Rush Limbaugh used to say something similar to Gilder from time to time. I also thought his comments in that direction were sad and tied to his experiences with feminists as a young man searching for an honest women in a world full of women who rejected God's design for marriage. In a nutshell, rather than basing marriage on the expectation that a man provide leadership, the impression is given that the women is in charge... and you're right, that does describe many marriages. But, it ought not be. Anyway, I've already said too much, thanks for your comment.
Plato's "Republic" has male children removed from their mothers at the age of 7 and educated by the males in society to learn to be men i.e. hunt, fight etc. When the boy becomes a man he may return to his mother, but only then. Women cannot raise boys. Especially single or divorced mothers - although they like to insist they can be both mother and father to their sons - they cannot and the boys usually get into all sorts of mischief because of it. There are many and sundry psychological reasons, one of which is that many boys from such families hold the mother responsible for the father's abandonment or loss.
There's another reply to you, but I can't see it. I'm a male, older of a younger sister by 2 years, raised by a single mom in the 1980s (parents divorced when I was 7) and no strong male influence in my life, really since. I used to think my mom could be both "mom" & "dad." Boy, was I wrong. No wonder I never married or had kids. Been single for many years.
@@cosmictreason2242 Yes, I entirely agree with you! However, in today's feminist/feminine dominated society Plato's notion is considered obscene and dangerous! For the first few years, at least, the mother's role is crucial re. feeding, nurturing and the other "motherly" duties. The father's presence is ALWAYS important, but let's say during those early "weening" years the mother's presence cannot be dismissed. "A masculine society always thrives and prospers. A feminine society, ineluctably, leads to tyranny." (unknown - Aristotle maybe) We are witnessing the inexorable unraveling of the fabric of Western society concocted and fomented by the organized t r i b e employing benighted feminists (amongst others) to accomplish this unpardonable task. Research: True leaders of French Revolution and True leaders of Russian Revolution It's always the same gang. God Bless
@@cosmictreason2242 do you know why he held that opinion? Because “males are thought to be arrested in bodily growth if they have intercourse while the seed is still growing” !
You're so accurate in pointing out the absurdity of thinking that since we have a post-Industrial era complex that affords certain material opportunity and options that we can now erase human nature. Modern secular society demands that we suspend self-evident, historical reality and simply not question the narratives of the day. It really is a recipe for societal collapse. May God have mercy on us and bring humility!
Why do we refer to human sexuality in terms of agriculture? Exploring that would probably provide clarity on the gender vs. sex issue, and help folks understand that masculinity and femininity express much more transcendent things than the current culture would prefer to acknowledge or belleve. An awareness of gender has been nearly dismissed as "superstition."
If you search Jordan Peterson and Warren Farrell re the boy crisis, the psychological mechanics of why single mothers are bad parents is explained in detail in that video
It kinda sounds like Gilder was being an edge-lord for the sake of attracting attention. Listening to him talk he makes his points clear enough. He chooses to use terms that shock the ear to get people's attention first then explains that what he said doesn't mean what it sounded like at first. In other words I see why Wilson likes Gilder and how Wilson has been inspired by him.
He's only saying things that are true about how reality works. The fact that it is shocking is not because he is trying to be shocking. He is just staying true things.
It's sad because I think? Gilder is speaking from experience; his father died young and he was raised by his mother and father figures in his life. I guess he's right.
Economics: directly from Latin oeconomicus "of domestic economy," from Greek oikonomikos "practiced in the management of a household or family" from oikonomia "household management" (see economy (n.)).
So when achieving men and gorgeous women are allowed to have multiple partners, the rejected turn to homosexuality?? Well, the theory doesn't contradict Scripture: fornication is bad, adultery is bad, divorce (apart from reason of adultery) is bad, etc.
If I didn’t understand the argument as more of a whole I’d not agree with most of what he says here. I’ve listed to him and Doug in a more long form conversation and you can track a good portion of what he says along side more popular opinions. Once again, the way he says a thing VS the way others SAY it is most of the issue with him. He hardly has charisma.
I will also add that Mr Gilder was a man ahead of his time as now the reason why red pill has become so popular is because men are told the lies that we need to pursue women out of desirability instead of economically and to perform and women have become far more pickier now. And 30 years later articles show he was right about single motherhood, so much for their offense being warranted and no Donahue it was never that complicated
Thank you Pastor Doug! Your one of the few that speaks about a man’s role and women’s role in a traditional sense that should be the way it should be ( by traditional I don’t mean women can’t work at all, but that there are differences between men and women and that man is the head of the family and men need to be masculine)
They're not though. Throughout history and modern day, women are more promiscuous than men. The feminist myth that they are not was riding the coattails of Christianizstion which repressed women's urges
Or online porn, which always gets omitted in the Only Fans conversation for some reason. Probably because a lot of the women on it actually ARE sex slaves.
It indeed is ironic that to a consistent feminist, freedom is working 50 hours a week for a boss while slavery is having a husband whom she is to respect and obey...
@@DaDitka Where she works probably has laws against exploitation. No such safeguard with a man you have to "obey" and it's all happening behind closed doors.
To the woman in the audience St.Paul states: The woman is not independent of the man nor man of the woman The woman was created for the man, not the man for the woman Moses records that the woman was created to be a help mate for the man, ie her created purpose is to help her husband in dominion work. We inevitably end in folly when we attempt to find secular reasons for God’s designs or worse redesign to our proclivities. It is as if we think we are God’s counselor instructing Him instead of his creation that ought to strive to obey Him.
@@aallen5256 nothing on the Bible is questioned by evidence it is only denied by atheists who implicitly admit in their denial that they would not get to live life on their terms if the thing they're denying were true
@@cosmictreason2242 move on, you lost all standing when it was proven that you make up statistics !! Chubby liars aren’t cute. But if you do want to try learning.. the historicity of Moses is considered widely suspect, even by Orthodox Judaism, and modern scholarly consensus concludes he is mostly mythical.
@@webstercat What do you think about nipples on men? Nipples are only useful on women, so do you think God has nipples, hence men do, and eventually women?
Now wait. Let's qualify that. It's much harder for women to raise boys and ALMOST impossible without God's grace. Women can and have raised fine men of great character.
No. When a good man grew up without a father, it was not due to a good mother, it was in spite of her and in spite of the lack of a father. Women are incapable of fathering a child, just as men cannot mother. End of story.
I agree it is better for men and women to marry for life. However, the reality is many women are abandoned by the fathers of their children. So they have no choice but to raise their sons alone. It is not optimal but it can be done, not easily.
I understand what you’re saying. I want to suggest that it “can be done,” as in the child can leave the mothers custody alive, but it CANNOT be done well. A woman CANNOT raise a good man because a woman is not a man. A man becomes a man by learning from other men, by emulation. There are almost always options available for a women to find good male role models for her son. Ideally, if she was abandoned, she should be a part of a congregation of believers, within which, elders can mentor and disciple him.
Why are "many women" picking such despicable men to in the first place? Women need to make better choices & decisions in regards to who they sleep with
@@thaimuayshoo1171 Everyone gets fooled sometime. But I think the rate of adultery, domestic violence etc has always been high. Unfortunately adultery is now tolerated. Even expected in our society.
Israel wasn't a polygynous culture. Assuming so based on a few kings and patriarchs is foolish. Even so, yes as a matter of fact the father back you go to where it was more common, the worse the gay situation was. Judges 19
I realize that this video concerns itself with Christianity but the vast majority of religions on Earth do not have a creation myth which promotes the idea that man was made before woman.
@@TGP109 actually, all the abrahamic religions are patriarchal. The scriptural narrative is the oldest and best historical record that we have available to validate itself as a true religion. I believe some of the other religions do worship Gods that truly exist, but these other gods are created beings, created by the one true God, Yahweh. These other Gods will be judged by God and also by Christian’s according to the Word of God. You might be surprised what you read about when you crack open the Bible. The creation story given in scripture is much more believable than any of the atheists arguments, if you are naive enough to believe order came from chaos, then you are foolish on purpose, and if that’s the case, you cannot be helped.
Gilder neglects the female perspective. Women are naturally more conservative because we are by nature, weaker. Even a woman that is strong in comparison to her female counterparts will naturally seek out a much stronger mate. We have to respect the person we are married to. We have every right to be “selective”. Who wants to be married to someone who is socially, intellectually or economically inferior? I imagine marriage would be challenging when there is a large disparity in salaries or, even intellectual capacity. The last few decades have lended to women in all spheres of society - more so than ever before. This has not taken anything away from women’s choice to work primarily from the home, homeschool or from child rearing. In fact, it’s pushed more women from a career focus to careful family planning. As it turns out - women desire and love to be wives and mothers. That desire is not just common to Christian women. This is why there are tons of material out there (misguided or not) by women talking about home making, child rearing and marriage. There is far more of that than women talking about any other subject.
You are justifying your right to be selective by your feelings of respect, not by reason. I'm interested to hear an actual reason. Second, economic inequality has shot up in perfect correlation with women's independence, along with declining marriage and fertility rates. The second half of your comment is optimistic and uplifting, but again entirely based on feelings rather than evidence.
Women are naturally conservative? Women are naturally hypergamous. At certain times this can appear conservative but it is radically different; further, it’s dangerous to call hypergamy conservative. The French and Russian revolutions, and Marxism more broadly, (but also other collectivist movements like unions, prohibition and feminism) failed/fail to gain traction until women take on the cause. Their hypergamy, and not their conservatism, was the reason for their support. They were dissatisfied with the situation they found themselves in and were willing to burn their whole world down to get something they thought was better. Hypergamy must be bridled as much, it not more than, men’s barbarism.
@@peterricketts8645 95% of American women do not marry as virgins & 40% of all children in the US are born to unmarried mothers. Yes, women are openly hypergamous today and many women have premarital sex with completely different types of men than the men they decide to marry. Young women still love & Choose to bang the fun bad boy dark triad types of men. I was a local rock bass player, I know the raw (or perhaps fallen?) nature of these women. They do this because women are not held to immediate consequences for their promiscuity like what the Old Order Amish do with all those who act antithetically to the will of God (Shaming, shunning & excommunication). The average age of first marriage for American women nowadays is 28 y/o. Long gone are the days of men in mass marrying the cute farmers daughter next door or his high school sweetheart. She's too busy posting 1% clothed body shots on social media now or tingles/attention-hunting on Online dating. She's also focusing on college pound town and building over at the corporate office building lusting over Chad Executive (who may very well just give her a nice fat bonus if she plays her cards right), & when she decides that she has had her fun (Epiphany phase) only then is she likely to "settle down" with that boring but "economically attractive" guy she wouldn't give the time of day to back when she was in highschool or college.
Quran 4:34 "Men are in charge of women by right of what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend of their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband's absence what Allāh would have them guard. But those wives from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], discipline them. But if they obey you [once more], do not be unjust to them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Great."
"The crucial thing is powerful men not be applauded for leaving their wives as they grow older and marrying young women." Tell that to the some 80% of evangelical Christians that support T***P no matter what.
They don't support Trump because they believe he is a Christian, they support him because they know that the DC establishment is way worse than him. Keep trying snowflake
Are you aware of how Biden married his wife? I don't think christian's support Trump because of his moral character, or inspite of his sins. Rather, I think it that the sins of those who say it is acceptable to murder babies in the womb and who make themselves 'gods' by trying to dictate to the populace who they can or cannot vote for, are more alarming and immediately dangerous to the stability of society.
@tdot3407 I think the problem is that there are too many loud voices who fall into one of two categories- The "Orange Man Bad" group, which sees Trump as being the devil himself and solely responsible for every sin that has ever been committed (did you know it was Trump who originally kidnapped, bought, sold, and had slaves? The Buy Larger Mansions founders told me themselves! It's a fact!!! It's TRUE!). The "Cheeto Jesus Saves" group (I call them the "Trump Cult"), who think that Jesus has nothing on this man and he is the only man in the universe who can save God's America (did you know that Trump once multiplied an old rubber tire and two quarts of used oil into ribeye steaks for 10,000 people? I heard Robert Jeffers say this! It's a fact! IT'S TRUE!!!). This is idolatry pure and simple. Idolatry, as GK Chesterton once said, can be committed by setting both false gods AND false devils. And idolaters will never like it when you don't love, or hate, the same idols they do. Last, I can't help but think that we will always bring our gods into the discussion. As a Christian, for instance, I look at life through a biblical worldview and in the context of God and His son. A Trump cultist or an "Orange Man Bad" cultist is going to bring their idols into it as well. So unless we recognize who Trump really is and treat him as such (neither as God nor as the devil), unfortunately, it is going to be about him. And the criticism which is valid (like the OP) as well as the good he has done will be ignored, all in the name of forcing the other to bow. Sorry for the long answer. But this is the best I can give you. Take care and I wish you well.
@@tdot3407 I agree. I used to be a male feminist/liberal, then turned conservative for some reason in 2016, and became a Trump supporter. The hatred people and media (!) have for that man is insane. He's also not our savior....
Sometimes when you flip a coin it lands on its side. Exceptions occur to nearly every rule you could imagine, but that does not disprove the rule. It is a peculiar type of philosophical oppression to demand that every person preface every statement with #notall before stating it.
It is very hard to articulate this to sensitive people, but men are much better fathers than women and it's unfortunate how easily they are dismissed and abandoned in families.
Amen to that. And while we're sharing obvious facts, here's mine: women are better mothers than men.
Women aren't able to raise boys? What about Jesus's mother?
Yeah dude women aren’t fathers they’re mothers. And mothers are better at raising children than men for sure.
3 replies and none are visible. Wow, YT censoring is terrible.
Sometimes people just delete their responses, too.
I was never greatly motivated to make money when I was unmarried, I easily make double now what I did then.
That's because there's no real need to make money when unmarried. Exceptions occur, of course, but most men are content with a cheap bed in an empty apartment and a really nice computer. The only real reason to make more money than necessary for immediate comfort and to remain moderately comfortable in retirement, is to impress and/or support women and children.
@@billbadson7598 the "cheap bed in an empty apartment" perfectly describes my situation now hahah
In the 80's he got a bad reaction to saying women-led households can't raise boys; today he'd loose his lively hood
I guess women make the best fathers and men make the best mothers! 🤷♂️ Who knew!
Truth is always villain!!
@@DrivenByChrist you should have been put in care if your family was useless.
Had a Family; what a Blessing!
Yep; they canNot, Properly.
Before I had kids I was pretty happy with my job and income, once my Wife stopped working, and was at home looking after my first child and all the added expenses of being a Father I was suddenly provided with the motivation to advance and earn more. I probably would have eventually but having kids was the biggest jumpstart to my professional advancement.
I was like that as well but now that my kids are entering the teenage years, I’ve pulled back and want to work for as much money as I can for as little work as possible, and as much work from him e& vacation as possible. For convenience? No. To be ready at every turn to counter the demonic society reflected now in kids movies, schools, and society in general. I’ve lived in the “safe” neighborhoods of leftist states but even now in a borderline conservative state, the lack of biblical & moral foundation has turned even the nicest of people into evidence of Romans’ description that God gave them up to depraved minds. All the companies I’ve worked at over the past 10 years have jumped on board with ESG and DEI garbage and they all celebrate shame month. I have no motivation at all over these past few years beyond the bare minimum. I care more about being available, counseling, guiding, and vacationing with my family. Power, position, money and wild living are like vomit in my mouth.
Imagine falling in love with a man, marrying him, and then having daughters that you teach to hate that daddy…
That’s what I heard from that mom. My husband took care of me and my girls so they can grow up and never want that for themselves. Ugh! Shame on her.
Keep building Canon!
Thanks for the videos!
The vitriolic diatribe that beset Gilder in his day seems comparable to what one expects today who opposes trans…
UnclearBugle.jpg
7:32 “Why you booing me? I’m right!”
He’s 100% right about the ghetto btw. Smash the Matriarchy!
Correct! It has hurt my race after this great society experiment of 60 years
yup @@reginaford8575
I love that you are watching these old clips of tv talk shows. I have been down that rabbit hole recently watching a terrible clip of a gentleman from Jews for Jesus debating an "anti-missionary" who converted from Judaism to Christianity and back. Indont know if the episode is horribly clipped but the gospel is mostly abscent and it left me yearning for a quality defense of the faith on 90s morning TV. Phil had some doosies even though he was a flaming liberal. I commend him for this episode.
I think Canon was doing just fine before this push. I really don't see what this is except a distraction from positions which have previously been better articulated by Wilson and others in his camp.
Moreover, his Gilder's definition of sexual inferiority or superiority are just dumb. They're as dumb as the complementarian insistence that men and women are equals. Men and women have separate roles in regard to the question of sexuality and neither is superior or inferior, nor are the equal. The need to order disparate things is a child's game and it's a stupid distraction from things which actually matter.
Moreover, his sociological arguments for the basis of marriage fall flat. The real reasons are in Genesis and they're far more compelling than anything Gilder offers here. I find him to be somewhat like Jordan Peterson. I agree with his claims and observations, but his logical "arguments" are often sophistry predicated on evolutionary storytelling and/or sociological speculation.
"Moreover, his sociological arguments for the basis of marriage fall flat...are often sophistry predicated on...sociological speculation"
I see what you're getting at, but don't entirely agree. It's not just "speculation". He's accumulated an abundance of evidence and arrived at reasonable conclusions based on that evidence. As Wilson points out, he's not so much that he's trying to persuade them as much as he's telling them what is. You say, "I agree with his claims and observations". This is because they align with the Bible, which is your and my foundation. However, Christians tend to admire when someone like Answers in Genesis discovers physical evidence that aligns with God's Word. Why not in the social sciences, too, if conducted with integrity? Scientific observation, honestly studied, points to God and gives Him glory (just as a observations about logic would). It is possible, as fallen humans, to misinterpret the data (as William Lane Craig does with evolution), but that doesn't discount all honest study of the sciences. By the way, George Gilder eventually rejected evolution and indicated that people need to be taught Christianity, though I don't know the extent of his beliefs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gilder
Next, there's something profound in observing in the natural order that it aligns with what God says is the natural order. It's the kind of revelation spoken of in Romans one that makes us accountable. When I was 6 or younger (in a non-Christian home), I remember being heavily burdened with the thought, "Why am I so bad? Why do I want to break my parents rules? Why are my parents so bad? Why do they break the rules they give me (cursing, perverse, violent, etc...)? What's wrong with all of us? Why is it chaotic here?" When I asked the adults in my life about my own evil, they would say, "Oh, you're a good boy. Everyone is mischievous now again. You'll mature out of it". I was so dejected by this non-answer. In school, I was always told how good I was. I was also taught that we're born "blank slates". None of these satisfied what I had actually observed about human evil, though. It wasn't until I was forced to attend a Christian school at the age of 14 that I heard the clear gospel preached. The preacher explained original sin, the fall, the consequences of sin in this life and the next. His Bible-based explanation fit perfectly with my sociologically-observed concerns. But, he didn't just explain the foundation of my observations. He also explained the solution in who Christ is and what Christ did. Without me even knowing it throughout my childhood, God had been using my honest sociological observations to bring me unto Himself, even though I wasn't in pursuit of Him at all. I just didn't understand why reality was so bad. The Bible tells us who, what, when, where, and why.
As a boy, I didn't realize it, but God was using his natural order to gradually draw me to Himself. Similarly, when someone tells the truth about reality, regardless of their views on God at the time, if someone else hears their observations and is drawn to the truth or have that truth clarified, God can use the same to draw that person. I dare say that Gilder positively influenced at least 1 person in that audience with his views about _what is_. Likewise, it's possible that Peterson's observations are helping him to get closer to saving faith than he would be otherwise. We'll see...
@@brandonbrandon2893 doubtless there is something of value in what Gilder is saying, in as much as he is recognizing the patriarchy in that men and women are different. That alone is shocking to the crowd here which were well discipled by the shrill feminism of 1970's America, which of course persists and has metastasized into various evils which destroy the home, family and ultimately society itself as we further atomize into individuals who are "me first and my happiness" vs. duty and serving ordained roles as prescribed in the Word.
Still, I have to side with the critics of DW on the inexcusability of supporting Gilder here. If we support the passage which characterizes marriage and men's role in marriage in terms of Gilder's perception that the man needs marriage in order to keep civil. As opposed to saying man needs marriage because he was created to lead the household and love his wife like Christ loves the church. Well, where does that leave Christ if we accept Gilder's definitions and logical characterization of marriage ? What to take from Scripture's parallel of man and wife and the church and Christ ?
Anyway, DW already had much better material on relationships which are far more grounded. I guess Gilder is a big deal to folks who are older than myself ( I was a toddler when this book came out ). So, perhaps the way to understand the publication is just in terms of extending the reach and audience of Canon. Someone told me that today... but, I think Doug really likes this Gilder fellow and at least buys into men entering the marriage relation in some sense similar to what Gilder describes with his "female sexual superiority".
As I recall, Rush Limbaugh used to say something similar to Gilder from time to time. I also thought his comments in that direction were sad and tied to his experiences with feminists as a young man searching for an honest women in a world full of women who rejected God's design for marriage. In a nutshell, rather than basing marriage on the expectation that a man provide leadership, the impression is given that the women is in charge... and you're right, that does describe many marriages. But, it ought not be.
Anyway, I've already said too much, thanks for your comment.
Plato's "Republic" has male children removed from their mothers at the age of 7 and educated by the males in society to learn to be men i.e. hunt, fight etc. When the boy becomes a man he may return to his mother, but only then. Women cannot raise boys. Especially single or divorced mothers - although they like to insist they can be both mother and father to their sons - they cannot and the boys usually get into all sorts of mischief because of it. There are many and sundry psychological reasons, one of which is that many boys from such families hold the mother responsible for the father's abandonment or loss.
There's another reply to you, but I can't see it. I'm a male, older of a younger sister by 2 years, raised by a single mom in the 1980s (parents divorced when I was 7) and no strong male influence in my life, really since. I used to think my mom could be both "mom" & "dad." Boy, was I wrong. No wonder I never married or had kids. Been single for many years.
Plato was wrong, men are needed way before the kids even learn how to speak
@@cosmictreason2242 Yes, I entirely agree with you! However, in today's feminist/feminine dominated society Plato's notion is considered obscene and dangerous! For the first few years, at least, the mother's role is crucial re. feeding, nurturing and the other "motherly" duties. The father's presence is ALWAYS important, but let's say during those early "weening" years the mother's presence cannot be dismissed. "A masculine society always thrives and prospers. A feminine society, ineluctably, leads to tyranny." (unknown - Aristotle maybe) We are witnessing the inexorable unraveling of the fabric of Western society concocted and fomented by the organized t r i b e employing benighted feminists (amongst others) to accomplish this unpardonable task. Research: True leaders of French Revolution and True leaders of Russian Revolution It's always the same gang. God Bless
@@pninnabokov3734 personally i love Aristotle's opinion that the ideal age of marriage for men is 36 and women is 18
@@cosmictreason2242 do you know why he held that opinion? Because “males are thought to be arrested in bodily growth if they have intercourse while the seed is still growing” !
You're so accurate in pointing out the absurdity of thinking that since we have a post-Industrial era complex that affords certain material opportunity and options that we can now erase human nature. Modern secular society demands that we suspend self-evident, historical reality and simply not question the narratives of the day. It really is a recipe for societal collapse. May God have mercy on us and bring humility!
collapse happening in real time
Why do we refer to human sexuality in terms of agriculture? Exploring that would probably provide clarity on the gender vs. sex issue, and help folks understand that masculinity and femininity express much more transcendent things than the current culture would prefer to acknowledge or belleve. An awareness of gender has been nearly dismissed as "superstition."
Yes, stakes and responsibility make a difference...as God intended. :)
If you search Jordan Peterson and Warren Farrell re the boy crisis, the psychological mechanics of why single mothers are bad parents is explained in detail in that video
So true! Great teachings from Peterson and Ferrell
This was excellent, thank you.
It’s not clear here, but why is it that moms can’t raise boys properly?
It kinda sounds like Gilder was being an edge-lord for the sake of attracting attention. Listening to him talk he makes his points clear enough. He chooses to use terms that shock the ear to get people's attention first then explains that what he said doesn't mean what it sounded like at first.
In other words I see why Wilson likes Gilder and how Wilson has been inspired by him.
It’s a daytime talk show, the format kind of invites that approach.
He's only saying things that are true about how reality works. The fact that it is shocking is not because he is trying to be shocking. He is just staying true things.
This is a great reminder that there's truly nothing new under the sun
Gilder be turning out gold. :) Thank you for your chuckles, Uncle. :)
Based. It's real simple and ppl get too triggered to see the world the way it is
It's interesting to see how Warren Farrell has changed his mind over the last 40 years too.
there's PLENTY of things female-headed families can't do, not just "one thing"
It's sad because I think? Gilder is speaking from experience; his father died young and he was raised by his mother and father figures in his life. I guess he's right.
Wow, this is a great video! Terrifying, prophetic and necessary.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Good on Doug for taking time to explain to the hecklers what Gilder is declaring.
It sounded like Donahue was understood/equated HIV issues with homosexuality. Interesting...
Economics: directly from Latin oeconomicus "of domestic economy," from Greek oikonomikos "practiced in the management of a household or family" from oikonomia "household management" (see economy (n.)).
So when achieving men and gorgeous women are allowed to have multiple partners, the rejected turn to homosexuality??
Well, the theory doesn't contradict Scripture: fornication is bad, adultery is bad, divorce (apart from reason of adultery) is bad, etc.
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing. I've never heard this take before, but it makes sense.
If I didn’t understand the argument as more of a whole I’d not agree with most of what he says here. I’ve listed to him and Doug in a more long form conversation and you can track a good portion of what he says along side more popular opinions. Once again, the way he says a thing VS the way others SAY it is most of the issue with him. He hardly has charisma.
My favorite post mill
I will also add that Mr Gilder was a man ahead of his time as now the reason why red pill has become so popular is because men are told the lies that we need to pursue women out of desirability instead of economically and to perform and women have become far more pickier now. And 30 years later articles show he was right about single motherhood, so much for their offense being warranted and no Donahue it was never that complicated
I would’ve liked to have seen the commercials…
Like the old Secret antiperspirant one? “Secret: Strong enough for a man but made for a women.”
There used to be dowries. Now women work is the dowry.
Keep it up Canon.
Thank you Pastor Doug! Your one of the few that speaks about a man’s role and women’s role in a traditional sense that should be the way it should be ( by traditional I don’t mean women can’t work at all, but that there are differences between men and women and that man is the head of the family and men need to be masculine)
I am from a female headed family
What it come down to is that the choices we make will change society as it already has and the results may not be what we hoped for
Is Doug agreeing or disagreeing with Gilder? thank you!
It might make sense to say "women are more sexually and relationally conservative"
They're not though. Throughout history and modern day, women are more promiscuous than men. The feminist myth that they are not was riding the coattails of Christianizstion which repressed women's urges
Empowerment: She says "I'm not a man's property" then becomes a sex slave, to multiple of the worst men, on only fans. Dumb.
Or online porn, which always gets omitted in the Only Fans conversation for some reason. Probably because a lot of the women on it actually ARE sex slaves.
A stripper isn't a sex slave; she is just a stripper.
It indeed is ironic that to a consistent feminist, freedom is working 50 hours a week for a boss while slavery is having a husband whom she is to respect and obey...
@@DaDitka Feminism gave them the opportunity to be anything they wanted to be; and they still chose to be strippers
@@DaDitka Where she works probably has laws against exploitation. No such safeguard with a man you have to "obey" and it's all happening behind closed doors.
1:00 The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self
To the woman in the audience St.Paul states:
The woman is not independent of the man nor man of the woman
The woman was created for the man, not the man for the woman
Moses records that the woman was created to be a help mate for the man, ie her created purpose is to help her husband in dominion work.
We inevitably end in folly when we attempt to find secular reasons for God’s designs or worse redesign to our proclivities. It is as if we think we are God’s counselor instructing Him instead of his creation that ought to strive to obey Him.
Did Moses really exist?
@@aallen5256 nothing on the Bible is questioned by evidence it is only denied by atheists who implicitly admit in their denial that they would not get to live life on their terms if the thing they're denying were true
@@cosmictreason2242 move on, you lost all standing when it was proven that you make up statistics !! Chubby liars aren’t cute.
But if you do want to try learning.. the historicity of Moses is considered widely suspect, even by Orthodox Judaism, and modern scholarly consensus concludes he is mostly mythical.
Men made in image of God
Women made in the image of man.
@@webstercat What do you think about nipples on men? Nipples are only useful on women, so do you think God has nipples, hence men do, and eventually women?
Now wait. Let's qualify that. It's much harder for women to raise boys and ALMOST impossible without God's grace. Women can and have raised fine men of great character.
No. When a good man grew up without a father, it was not due to a good mother, it was in spite of her and in spite of the lack of a father.
Women are incapable of fathering a child, just as men cannot mother. End of story.
I feel like there is so much here going over my head
Me too. I must have missed it if this topic was discussed at church.
I agree it is better for men and women to marry for life. However, the reality is many women are abandoned by the fathers of their children. So they have no choice but to raise their sons alone. It is not optimal but it can be done, not easily.
And it is also true that women initiate divorce 80% of the time
@@annamo6927 No, that is a myth based on who files with the court. Women file after their husbands have left.
I understand what you’re saying. I want to suggest that it “can be done,” as in the child can leave the mothers custody alive, but it CANNOT be done well. A woman CANNOT raise a good man because a woman is not a man. A man becomes a man by learning from other men, by emulation.
There are almost always options available for a women to find good male role models for her son. Ideally, if she was abandoned, she should be a part of a congregation of believers, within which, elders can mentor and disciple him.
Why are "many women" picking such despicable men to in the first place? Women need to make better choices & decisions in regards to who they sleep with
@@thaimuayshoo1171 Everyone gets fooled sometime. But I think the rate of adultery, domestic violence etc has always been high. Unfortunately adultery is now tolerated. Even expected in our society.
Homosexuality was rampant in Israel?
Israel wasn't a polygynous culture. Assuming so based on a few kings and patriarchs is foolish. Even so, yes as a matter of fact the father back you go to where it was more common, the worse the gay situation was. Judges 19
Gold, more of this
🤔 Interesting
The enemy has done this! God established patriarchy by making men first. The man wasn’t made for the woman, but the woman for the man.
I realize that this video concerns itself with Christianity but the vast majority of religions on Earth do not have a creation myth which promotes the idea that man was made before woman.
@@TGP109 actually, all the abrahamic religions are patriarchal. The scriptural narrative is the oldest and best historical record that we have available to validate itself as a true religion. I believe some of the other religions do worship Gods that truly exist, but these other gods are created beings, created by the one true God, Yahweh. These other Gods will be judged by God and also by Christian’s according to the Word of God. You might be surprised what you read about when you crack open the Bible. The creation story given in scripture is much more believable than any of the atheists arguments, if you are naive enough to believe order came from chaos, then you are foolish on purpose, and if that’s the case, you cannot be helped.
Gilder neglects the female perspective. Women are naturally more conservative because we are by nature, weaker. Even a woman that is strong in comparison to her female counterparts will naturally seek out a much stronger mate. We have to respect the person we are married to. We have every right to be “selective”. Who wants to be married to someone who is socially, intellectually or economically inferior? I imagine marriage would be challenging when there is a large disparity in salaries or, even intellectual capacity. The last few decades have lended to women in all spheres of society - more so than ever before. This has not taken anything away from women’s choice to work primarily from the home, homeschool or from child rearing. In fact, it’s pushed more women from a career focus to careful family planning. As it turns out - women desire and love to be wives and mothers. That desire is not just common to Christian women. This is why there are tons of material out there (misguided or not) by women talking about home making, child rearing and marriage. There is far more of that than women talking about any other subject.
You are justifying your right to be selective by your feelings of respect, not by reason. I'm interested to hear an actual reason. Second, economic inequality has shot up in perfect correlation with women's independence, along with declining marriage and fertility rates. The second half of your comment is optimistic and uplifting, but again entirely based on feelings rather than evidence.
Women are naturally conservative?
Women are naturally hypergamous. At certain times this can appear conservative but it is radically different; further, it’s dangerous to call hypergamy conservative.
The French and Russian revolutions, and Marxism more broadly, (but also other collectivist movements like unions, prohibition and feminism) failed/fail to gain traction until women take on the cause. Their hypergamy, and not their conservatism, was the reason for their support. They were dissatisfied with the situation they found themselves in and were willing to burn their whole world down to get something they thought was better.
Hypergamy must be bridled as much, it not more than, men’s barbarism.
FACTS
Hypergamy is being conservative. It's playing it safe and ensuring security (which is how Wilson is using "conservative")
@@peterricketts8645 95% of American women do not marry as virgins & 40% of all children in the US are born to unmarried mothers. Yes, women are openly hypergamous today and many women have premarital sex with completely different types of men than the men they decide to marry.
Young women still love & Choose to bang the fun bad boy dark triad types of men. I was a local rock bass player, I know the raw (or perhaps fallen?) nature of these women. They do this because women are not held to immediate consequences for their promiscuity like what the Old Order Amish do with all those who act antithetically to the will of God (Shaming, shunning & excommunication). The average age of first marriage for American women nowadays is 28 y/o. Long gone are the days of men in mass marrying the cute farmers daughter next door or his high school sweetheart. She's too busy posting 1% clothed body shots on social media now or tingles/attention-hunting on Online dating. She's also focusing on college pound town and building over at the corporate office building lusting over Chad Executive (who may very well just give her a nice fat bonus if she plays her cards right), & when she decides that she has had her fun (Epiphany phase) only then is she likely to "settle down" with that boring but "economically attractive" guy she wouldn't give the time of day to back when she was in highschool or college.
I would say women are naturally CONVENTIONAL, not conservative.
@@peterricketts8645he literally proved what you just said wrong. And yet you repeated it. Like a good npc
Quran 4:34 "Men are in charge of women by right of what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend of their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband's absence what Allāh would have them guard. But those wives from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], discipline them. But if they obey you [once more], do not be unjust to them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Great."
Blah blah blah. You are evangelizing for satan.
Never a dull day with conservatives 😅
That's because they are the best,!!
praise Allah
"The crucial thing is powerful men not be applauded for leaving their wives as they grow older and marrying young women." Tell that to the some 80% of evangelical Christians that support T***P no matter what.
They don't support Trump because they believe he is a Christian, they support him because they know that the DC establishment is way worse than him. Keep trying snowflake
I completely agree. The Trump Cult is a very difficult can to open.
Are you aware of how Biden married his wife? I don't think christian's support Trump because of his moral character, or inspite of his sins. Rather, I think it that the sins of those who say it is acceptable to murder babies in the womb and who make themselves 'gods' by trying to dictate to the populace who they can or cannot vote for, are more alarming and immediately dangerous to the stability of society.
@tdot3407 I think the problem is that there are too many loud voices who fall into one of two categories-
The "Orange Man Bad" group, which sees Trump as being the devil himself and solely responsible for every sin that has ever been committed (did you know it was Trump who originally kidnapped, bought, sold, and had slaves? The Buy Larger Mansions founders told me themselves! It's a fact!!! It's TRUE!).
The "Cheeto Jesus Saves" group (I call them the "Trump Cult"), who think that Jesus has nothing on this man and he is the only man in the universe who can save God's America (did you know that Trump once multiplied an old rubber tire and two quarts of used oil into ribeye steaks for 10,000 people? I heard Robert Jeffers say this! It's a fact! IT'S TRUE!!!).
This is idolatry pure and simple. Idolatry, as GK Chesterton once said, can be committed by setting both false gods AND false devils. And idolaters will never like it when you don't love, or hate, the same idols they do.
Last, I can't help but think that we will always bring our gods into the discussion. As a Christian, for instance, I look at life through a biblical worldview and in the context of God and His son. A Trump cultist or an "Orange Man Bad" cultist is going to bring their idols into it as well.
So unless we recognize who Trump really is and treat him as such (neither as God nor as the devil), unfortunately, it is going to be about him. And the criticism which is valid (like the OP) as well as the good he has done will be ignored, all in the name of forcing the other to bow.
Sorry for the long answer. But this is the best I can give you. Take care and I wish you well.
@@tdot3407 I agree. I used to be a male feminist/liberal, then turned conservative for some reason in 2016, and became a Trump supporter. The hatred people and media (!) have for that man is insane. He's also not our savior....
amazing how women can raise boys and my mother in law raised 4. my husband is a fine fellow. It's a shame that people lie so ineptly.
A fine fellow by who's standard? Does he meet biblical requirements of manhood?
Sometimes when you flip a coin it lands on its side. Exceptions occur to nearly every rule you could imagine, but that does not disprove the rule. It is a peculiar type of philosophical oppression to demand that every person preface every statement with #notall before stating it.
Is it better for a boy to have a good father present than to be raised by his mother alone?
He's not saying it never happens, but his general principle is objectively provable statistically.
@@jarrettalyssaneville1122 It's sad that you even think to ask that question 😕
The 50 years of Diana's temple has been a rotting corpse stench of an downward death spiral.
Moving to Botswana 🇧🇼
Stay away! We're full.