10 comments

  1. Man, I don’t even know where to begin on this…

    First, whether cohabitation is a good idea is going to depend on the couple. For some people, especially those committed to not having premarital sex, it’s going to end in disaster. For others, it can be a way to tell whether (as he mentions) there’s actual commitment in the relationship and thus whether marriage is a good idea. Just like most things, it will benefit some couples and not others.

    But his alternative of “courting” is even worse. He linked to another article of his, “Courting rules: how to tell if a woman is a committed Christian”. It’s probably one of the most bizarre and out of touch articles I’ve ever read. He advocates what seems like an interrogation of a potential spouse, and suggests questions like “What scientific evidence would you point to to show that God created the universe OR that God fine-tuned the universe, or parts of the universe, for intelligent life?” I mean, come on. Should a Christian man really refuse to marry a woman because she’s not well-versed in science, philosophy, and apologetics? What if he falls in love with a waitress?

    His last question is the worst of them all. He makes statements like “In order to help men to be protectors, women have to give them time to study to discern truth from lie, and support their ability to be physically strong, and to own firearms.”, and “In order to help men to be providers, women have to advocate for fiscal conservatism in the public square. That would mean advocating for lower taxes, less government spending and smaller government.” Why does he think that Christians have to be like this? What about all the politically liberal Christians out there? What about the Christian men who aren’t physically strong, either due to illness or to putting most of their time into intellectual pursuits? What about the Christian men who have no interest in owning a gun or being the breadwinner in the family?

    This kind of thinking seems like it would be highly detrimental to almost any relationship. He’s advocating treating the prospect of marriage like a job interview. His idea of “courting” is about the most impersonal thing I’ve ever heard. Who in their right mind would interrogate their potential wife?

  2. Gah…I don’t mean to rant, but I just found another article on his site that’s even more bizarre (http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/do-men-have-a-responsibility-not-to-marry-feminists/). These quotes pretty much speak for themselves:

    “Do not believe anything they say to you, because women adapt to men and say what men want to hear.”

    “Demand that she read hard books on complicated things like astronomy and economics and education policy. Demand that she write about what she reads. ”

    “Complain about feminism and female nature all the time”

    “Burden her up with the stories of your hard work day and how hard it is to be a man.”

    There’s so many more, but I’m going to stop here. His plan for a successful marriage is just “men, be an insufferable jerk toward the woman you want to marry”.

  3. That’s taking quotes out of context. What I mean by that is what a good job interviewer will tell you about a candidate. Namely, it’s a good idea to give the person problems to solve during the interview to make sure that they can do what they say. For example, if you have an interview at a company like Microsoft or Google, they will ask you to coding problems.

    Regarding your first comment about cohabitation, you just stated a bunch of opinions. The New York Times article I linked to had the actual numbers. It’s better to appeal to evidence, not opinions, when making decisions.

    Regarding your other concerns, feel free to use your own approach. My goal is to test people for a job. If you have an alternative approach to courting, then be my guest. The only people who can tell you whether my approach works or not are the women who experience it. And let me just say that they they have no complaints. They appreciate the opportunity to distinguish themselves from other women by what they know, what they’ve done and what they can do.

    • One last thing. These are the roses I gave someone for Easter:
      http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1701569/Easter_Bouquet.jpg

      I demand a lot, but then I also offer a lot. Not just flowers, but multiple degrees in the sciences, chastity, a record of fidelity, chivalry, and just plain net worth. I have enough to keep my wife at home if she wants to and put two kids through college and grad school if I retire right now. My new girlfriends are always able to interview the old ones, and the old ones always give me recommendations. Maybe you don’t have all of these things to offer, and if that’s the case, then yes, you might have to be less selective, and so being rigorous about courting might not work for you.

      My positions are held because I have done extensive studying. Naturally, someone who has not studied things like economics and foreign policy and cosmology will not understand why these things matter.

  4. My goal is to test people for a job.

    Then why don’t you just hire a wife?

    Regarding your first comment about cohabitation, you just stated a bunch of opinions. The New York Times article I linked to had the actual numbers. It’s better to appeal to evidence, not opinions, when making decisions.

    I don’t have an account with the NY times, nor do I want one; so it won’t let me read the link. Also, all I said was “First, whether cohabitation is a good idea is going to depend on the couple.”. This isn’t a “mere” opinion, it’s a reasonable assumption to make, based on the fact that different couples have different goals in a relationship. If you disagree with my statement, you’re welcome to provide some data showing that cohabitation is always a bad idea for everyone.

    That’s taking quotes out of context. What I mean by that is what a good job interviewer will tell you about a candidate. Namely, it’s a good idea to give the person problems to solve during the interview to make sure that they can do what they say.

    I don’t see how constantly complaining about “female nature” (whatever this is supposed to mean), the difficulty of your job (unless you’re doing grueling physical labor, your job is probably easy), and “how hard it is to be a man” (protip: it’s not) can possibly be taken in the context of a job interview. I’ve never had a potential employer complain to me about how hard it is to be a manager.

  5. Robert,

    I think you need to understand where WK is coming from. Feminists are strongly anti-male these days and there’s such a shallow understanding of marriage that he is justified in finding a woman that fits the qualities that he desires for his household. From my understanding, his approach is not intended to be taken as a universal method of how we should approach woman but in general seems more directed toward what kind of qualities we should be looking for. Not everything will be of equal importance to everyone (e.g, evolution and intelligent design) but I greatly respect this man for the passion he has for dating the right female. His reaction comes out of a response to the attitude that other woman have toward responsibility, truth, virtue, and the like. From knowing WK, he’s got one of the most giving hearts. The woman that he courts would be truly blessed. He wants a woman that is prepared to take on the flames of hell itself in a relationship. It’s not going to be easy and full of happy dancing, drinking, etc.

    At the same time, I do see where you’re coming from but let’s take it easy man. He’s rightfully annoyed with the standards of our culture today and is looking for a girl that is counter to that. Maybe the methods of doing so are not particularly justified to you, but hopefully we can both understand each other here and chill for a bit.

  6. Gil,

    First – I think there’s a stray italic tag somewhere (probably at the end of my first post). Would you mind trying to find it, if possible?

    Second – After re-reading my previous posts here, I can see why you might suggest that I “chill”; but this is one of those cases where tone doesn’t translate well into text. I’m more baffled by this than anything else. When I wrote them, I was thinking “What the heck are you talking about?” and not “What’s wrong with you?” Honestly though, maybe I was a bit too reactionary – I don’t really care much about how he approaches relationships. It’s weird, but he can be weird if he wants :P

    I guess a good analogy would be if you were to travel halfway across the world to talk to a culture that doesn’t have a concept of linear time (if you’ve ever seen the first two episodes of Deep Space 9, it’s like that). The idea of treating a relationship like a job interview, demanding things, and complaining about my daily life is *that* foreign to me.

    Btw, I’d love your thoughts on the divine hiddenness post I put up on my new blog :D

    • That’s strange. WordPress (or the theme) must be retarded to let unclosed tags affect the rest of the comments. Bah! Fixed.

      Fair enough, I think there’s a lot that could be misinterpreted here. It’s probably weird because like you said, his philosophy is alien to our modern culture but I consider that a good thing in this case. In general, I’d defend his arguments by claiming that while some exceptions may be allowed in data like this, it still seems to be the case that cohabitation leads to bad effects. For that reason, it should be avoided.

      Just finished reading it! I’ll have a blogger here post his response to that on Thursday :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>