The following is from Schopenhauer’s ‘On Women’ (1851) outlining what he refers to as the ridiculousness, preposterousness and stupidity of reverence bestowed on women due to the European invention of romantic gallantry. – PW
* * *
To show [women] great reverence is extremely ridiculous, and lowers us in their eyes. When Nature made two divisions of the human race, she did not draw the line exactly through the middle. These divisions are polar and opposed to each other, it is true; but the difference between them is not qualitative merely, it is also quantitative.
This is just the view which the ancients took of woman, and the view which people in the East take now; and their judgment as to her proper position is much more correct than ours, with our old French notions of gallantry and our preposterous system of reverence—that highest product of Teutonico-Christian stupidity. These notions have served only to make women more arrogant and overbearing; so that one is occasionally reminded of the holy apes in Benares, who in the consciousness of their sanctity and inviolable position think they can do exactly as they please.
But in the West the woman, and especially the lady, finds herself in a false position; for woman, rightly called by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honor and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and be on equal terms with him. The consequences of this false position are sufficiently obvious. Accordingly it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were also relegated to her natural place, and an end put to that lady-nuisance, which not only moves all Asia to laughter but would have been ridiculed by Greece and Rome as well. It is impossible to calculate the good effects which such a change would bring about in our social, civil and political arrangements.
The false position which women occupy, demonstrated as it is, in the most glaring way, by the institution of the lady, is a fundamental defect in our social scheme, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must spread its baneful influence in all directions.
Man’s dignity begins with and is measured by how he stands his ground. When you see a man who does, you see a man with his spirit intact, defended, or being healed. You are seeing a man who owns himself, and belongs to no one else. This is one kind of man.
Now direct your attention to another kind of man: the man who kneels. The man on his knees. You see a man who lives by others’ expectations, others’ arbitrary standards, and others’ undue authority. You see a man that does not own himself, and his spirit broken.
The question of the purpose of man, in both the senses of humanity and the human male, is of particular urgency in something such as the Men’s Human Rights Movement. The case for men standing his ground today is in tandem to the case that he was always meant to.
We once again address the bizarre case for “natural gynocentrism” which attempts to determine that man is meant to service womankind, intrinsically, because of “biological reasons”. Attached to it is the notion that man should not change it and instead accept such an existence, albeit with the possible stipulation that gynocentrism has “gotten out of hand”.
This is the notion that mankind evolved to pedestalize women, and that’s why we are here. Ergo, man was always meant to live on his knees for women. Because biology.
It is for this reason we must make clear and advocate for a new cultural narrative that says no, mankind was never meant to grovel, but instead is meant to hold himself up, and always was.
Perhaps it is much more than a convenience of evolution that human beings are creatures that stand tall on two legs. It could be that there is a deeper, metaphysical meaning behind that evolution. What does it mean to bring such a creature down from where he stands?
The observant will notice that not only is there not enough defense of the man who stands for himself, but rather glorifies the kowtower, and alleges its charm, calling it “humility.”
If it is improper for a human being to be brought to his knees, then it follows that it is improper that anybody expects another human being to be on their knees for them. Taking all of this into consideration, we can point at where kneeling takes place in our society – who does them, for whom. Who expects this behavior. Who demands it. Who can’t imagine life without it.
From kowtowing to authority figures to going on his knees to attain women’s approval, mankind has made this practice an unquestioned habit. Under comfortable labels such as “sacrifice”, “humility”, “service” and even “love”, the symbolic groveling act holds the status of virtuous behavior. The refusal to do so holds the status of reckless independence, stubbornness, and adolescent rebellion.
They are, in fact, partly right about the latter. Standing tall and defiant on one’s feet requires independence. A streak of recklessness, for lack of a better term, can be a recipe for successful risk-taking endeavors where necessary. There is no problem with stubbornness if it means refusal to compromise one’s values and the well-being of himself and his own kin. Some of us can stand to revisit our adolescent energy in the face of the Saturnian stagnation of cold authority. Furthermore, being a rebel for the right cause is always noteworthy.
Make no mistake that those that uphold the virtues of subservient existence consider these qualities anathema. They aren’t misnomers, meaning that they are not mistaken in their choice of words as they blame independence for not being a good, humble-enough groveler.
What it Means to Kneel
Cast off all the clutter of empty justifications and excuses in the mind that grasps for any wholesome meaning to kneeling, and let’s cut to the chase with this one. I’m going to tell you what going down on your knees really means.
We have to realize that kneeling is not a picture made up of one figure, but at least two. Even if it is a solo act, something abstract fills the second role. Figure A is of course the kneeler, the creature on his knees. Figure B is the one that Figure A is at the feet of. Figure B stands, and looks down at Figure A.
B knows that the dirt is A’s rightful place. B may profess “compassion” and can possibly permit B to look up at A, emphasis on permit, but not generally; typically, A must avert his eyes.
The brutally honest interpretation of the image is Figure A representing the defeated being, the diminished, the lower, the inferior, the unworthy; Figure B would then represent the pedestalized, the exalted, the usurper, the tyrannical, the one that looks down and condescends.
This is a common historical toxic relationship between two humans – one human basking in the glory of being higher of another lowly, broken human. A relationship of host and parasite instead of equally human but different individuals – a defiance of human dignity, a false uplift involving the lowering of another.
There is no exception to this formula when we look at the everyday phenomenon of Romantic kneeling. A man is always expected to be on one or both of his knees. The woman, in presumed exaltation, looks down on him, and knows that in her mind and that of the society that upholds her, that he belongs there. He is hers to use and dispose.
Flip the genders, and this would constitute some sort of toxic, abusive relationship. The fact that it is acceptable the way we see it occurring in our real world is the problem that should be addressed and challenged.
It should be considered a form of sadism for a woman to actually be delighted to be in this position, or to observe this occurrence as a third party and classifying it as joyful. Likewise, it should be considered a form of masochism for a man to partake in such fundamental submission.
Too many think that these are the sort of things men do that women should be thankful for. At the risk of once again the message falling under deaf ears, I have to make this point yet again by asking the question: why is a man groveling on his knees and debasing himself something to be thankful for?
Why is the risk to men’s well-being and sacrifice of their time, health, and very lives subject to female gratitude? Why does the belittling of one for the pedestalization of another have any place in what is supposed to be a civilized society, in which all of humanity enjoy same dignity as human beings?
The Meaning of Natural
A common response I receive when I speak out against the expectation that gynocentrism is natural goes something like the following: “I do believe it is natural, even if I am against it.”
Again, a reminder of what is meant by gynocentrism: deference to women and their needs and wants at the expense of men and their needs and wants. These people are saying this state of affairs is natural, no matter what they ultimately feel about it. In other words, biologically proper to the species.
Perhaps it is only fair to reference two contexts of “natural”: evolutionarily arrived at, and what is metaphysically meant to be. I will attempt to respond to the allegation of “gynocentric nature” from both of these contexts.
We are generally preoccupied with human reproduction as well as the survival of the species when invoking evolution in justifying gynocentrism. A favorite bromide, paraphrased, is “A man can inseminate many women and the tribe will survive, whereas the opposite is unsustainable, therefore women’s survival is more valuable than any man.”
I will remind you that too many antifeminists love this argument; beware of the ones that parrot it.
But as it turns out, if humanity was “centric” about anything, the case would be better made that it would be about the children since it is their survival that trumps both adult men and women, at least so it has socially been accepted. Even without the argument from child-centrism, both men and women are equally valuable and necessary, and men have to be highlighted now because of how they are treated as extras at best, disposable and less than human at worst.
Gynocentrism clearly prioritizes male groveling and catering to females as if they are a superhuman level of being. Either that, or the male is subhuman; regardless, the tiers are clear. Female more valuable than male. But if it rings true that men are what build society, then is vulgar to even imagine them as anything but valuable.
The question to ask then becomes this: is it biologically natural for men to be downplayed as a subspecies of human of little to no importance to the evolutionary equation? Is degradation and mortification mankind’s natural state as it is the natural state for the female of the species to treat them accordingly?
There is a sickening prospect as traditional gynocentrists indulge in this line of thinking. Observe how they refer to the “science” of evopsych propaganda to justify the existence of the gynocentric status quo, just like Nazi Germany used the “science” of racial superiority as fuel for their particular ethnic crusade. Both use a form of scientism to justify classifying one group of humans as above, and the other below.
It is important to note that there is much more to the nature of humanity than just its survival and how it reproduces. The evolution of humanity chiefly has to do with how it evolved into its current physical and social form. As I have stated, Humanity evolved to stand and walk on its own two feet. Clearly, it is a large factor in bringing the species to where it is now.
Remember, however, what Homo Sapiens means: “Thinking Man”. Thinking is more than solving math problems or recognizing landscapes or realizing that fire burns…or worse, obeying; it is about asking questions – philosophy was born with the human, as he first contemplated the reason for his limited time on Earth.
Conclusion
What, then, is natural to mankind? To stand, to think, to achieve greatness.
What is decidedly not natural to mankind? To act in contrary fashion to the meaning of mankind. To not think, in other words conform. To not achieve, in other words to berate greatness or even worse, to destroy it. To not stand, in other words, to go down on his knees and grovel.
Based on what I have stated thus far, groveling is an act of non-humanity. The same species that looks forward and up for his aspirations and goals and ultimately followed through to create wonders civilizational, technological, and creative cannot simultaneously say that he is a mere animal in subservience.
Kneeling, then, means assuming the role of the subhuman. It becomes improper for anyone, man or woman, to assume the role that which condescends another human as a subhuman role. To see a man on his knees should be met with grave concern, instead of bubbling saccharine gratitude.
Groveling to the female of the species is completely incompatible to the nature of mankind as a bipedal driver of the motor of the world, end of story. This is my response to those who say that gynocentrism is natural, no matter whether they hate it or not: we are against gynocentrism because it is not natural, but rather a social disease with no proper biological backing.
Consider then why any woman must want this. Ever since the attempt to weasel into sex-relational favoritism by way of Romantic Love and courtship, in which the first gynocentrist gave an irresistible sales pitch that says “men much be subhuman servants to holy womankind” in order to curry favor with a woman, the stage was set. Women learned to see men as marks.
This has been my case for challenging the act of the kneel as gracious or wholesome as our gynocentric world loves to insist.
The next time you see a man proposing to a woman on his knees, know that he is degrading himself no matter the outcome of the proposal. The next time you see a man kowtowing on his knees to an authority figure that may or many not be divine, he is not practicing humility in any meaningful sense but rather has integrated his unworthiness as a human.
Kneeling is a gross affirmation of man as a sacrificial animal. It is an admission that he lives for the approval of tyrants big and small.
The reason why this should be placed as a higher issue for our men’s movement is because too many who call for “real masculinity” cite kneeling as an actual masculine trait. This is a danger, and we will do well to know one when we spot one.
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, 5:25 (NASB 1995)
In my experience, this is one of the more commonly quoted bits of scripture. I’ve had it recited to me, sometimes more like thrown at me, by other Christian men when discussing marriage and relationships. It’s most often used when the conversation turns to contentious wives and how to handle them within scriptural canons.
To be frank, most of the time I’ve heard Ephesians 5 invoked, it came across as a copout; a convenience for men without boundaries or leadership qualities to explain their failure to stand up to their wives, or, and even worse, as a way to soften the spines of other men who might consider rebuking their wives for their contentious ways. In other words, it’s “go to” scripture for emasculating and emasculated men. I’ve seen no shortage of clergy who also fall into this category.
This unfortunate tendency to conflate love with weakness is pervasive and part and parcel to the feminized facsimile of Jesus now being peddled by mainstream churches. To tell the truth, I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the negative impact that this misinterpretation of scripture has visited on the church, on the expectations that Christian men and women have of each other, and on the institution of marriage itself.
But I’ll try.
And I’ll start with a shout-out to Javier, whose suggestion in the recent chat I started piqued my interest right away. I offer this with a linguistic caveat. I pledged when I started this series of lectures that I would avoid all of the foul language that accentuated my work prior to my Christian life. Out of respect to Javier, I’ll read the suggestion as written, and I quote:
“Consider a series where you take a typical thing a woman says, which is usually a shit test, and dissect the various ways to respond to it. Almost like a school for how to deal with women in a long-term relationship when they start to gradually introduce disrespect.”
Fantastic suggestion, but one that requires some rebranding. I will henceforth refer to the well known test, as a leadership test. I think this works out pretty well since that is actually what it is. Language problem resolved.
Also, I want to approach this from a slightly different angle than you’d normally expect from someone in the red pill space. Rather than tag this and future similar talks as how to overcome leadership tests, I’m calling this, “How to love your wife as Christ loved the church.” Like the term, “leadership test,” I think “How to love your wife as Christ loved the church,” drills down much more succinctly on the designated topic.
But herein is the problem. The mind of the Western man and woman, Christian or not, is saturated and thoroughly corrupted with the romantic love narrative. When the conversation turns toward women and love, the Western mind automatically and reflexively conjures up images of romance, of giddy, undying infatuation, gallantry, chivalry, and worshipful praise, particularly of the woman. And I submit to you, dear listener, that this model of a man loving a woman doesn’t just evaporate when reading Ephesians 5:25. It continues to wield its influence, unabated, shaping our perceptions and our beliefs. It clouds our minds to what is actually meant by loving your wife as Christ loved the church. So, the task here is to first and foremost, long before we ever contemplate how to respond to disrespectful behavior, to clear out the romantic clutter from our worldview: to actively and purposefully reject the notion of romantic love when considering the love we have for a woman. We must, I tell you now, be unburdened by what has been… Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.
I should note here this confusion, this conflation of Christian love with romantic love, which I now call the “great conflation,” is a matter of historical record. After all, marriage based on romantic love is a recent development in anthropological terms. That kind of marriage, resting entirely on the insanity of infatuation, has only been happening for about 150 years. For countless thousands of years before that, marriages were arranged for the benefit of the families that were united by the institution. This involved, depending on circumstances, either dowries or bride price as the compensatory payoff for the union. It’s a topic I’ll be digging into an upcoming interview I’m doing with “This is Shah,” a man who has done significant investigation and research on the subject.
Suffice it to say for now that the Great Conflation did not go unnoticed. It’s been referenced in works by CS Lewis, but it was perhaps most succinctly nailed down by the great moral and religious thinker, Leo Tolstoy, who in 1888 wrote, and I quote, “I wish to open the eyes of all to the real nature and the tragic consequences of this substitution of romantic for Christian love.” End quote.
Keep in mind that that was written at the same time that romantically based marriage was coming into full swing as the latest social fad in the western world. Tolstoy wrote about what he was seeing play out in society, including the church, in real time. This may come as a surprise to those who have erroneously believed that marriage had always been a matter of romantic love. I would not hold that against them too harshly. Everyone operating in the romantic model is subject to such conditioned ignorance.
So, where does this leave us? Once we’ve cleared our view of romantic clutter, we need to answer the question, just how did Christ love the church?
Of course, the moment we actually do that, and attempt to answer the question honestly, it becomes abundantly clear that Christ’s love for the church wasn’t romantic. Christ didn’t send the church flowers. He didn’t take it on lavish vacations, or whisper sweet nothings in the church’s ear. He didn’t kneel before the church offering jewels. Indeed, he never tried to impress the church in any way. He never responded to a problem in the church with the pathetic surrender of, “yes, dear.” It was often quite the opposite.
Mind you, Christ loved the church, just as he loved all mankind. He gave his life for the church, just as he gave his life for you and me. In that light, the biblical lesson of that kind of love is clear where it concerns wives. We are to love them completely. We are willing to die for their protection. And, at least in my mind, this is where any similarity to the chivalrous model of romantic love begins and ends. The rest, every example of Christ’s love witnessed and recorded in scripture, takes a very different path.
The first thing we must acknowledge is that Christ’s love of the church was corrective.
In Revelations 2:14-16 Christ says to the Church of Pegamum;
“Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”
Call me crazy, but that doesn’t sound like date night.
To the Church of Thyatira, Christ, while commending their love and service, nonetheless rebukes them for allowing Jezebel to lead believers into sexual immorality and idolatry. He urges them to repent. That is from Revelation 2:20-23.
Indeed, as we study the scripture in Revelations, we see churches lined up like ducks in a carnival shooting game as Christ draws a bead on them, one after another. For reference, see Revelations 2:4-5, Revelations 2:10, Revelations 3:1-3 and Revelations 3:15-19
Furthermore, in Matthew 21:12-13 and John 2:13-17 Jesus corrects the misuse of the temple when He drives out the money changers and merchants in a violent outburst of righteous indignation. He condemns the commercialization of worship and the way the temple, a house of prayer, had been turned into what He called a “den of robbers.”
In Matthew 23, Jesus delivers a series of “woes” to the Pharisees and teachers of the law, who represented the religious establishment. He corrects them for hypocrisy, legalism, and their focus on outward righteousness while neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Though not addressing the Christian church directly, this correction speaks to the same religious hypocrisy that now infects the modern Christian church.
Finally, we see in Matthew 16:23 the Rebuke of Peter, Christ’s personally designated rock on which the Christian church was built. For after Peter tries to prevent Jesus from going to the cross, Jesus sternly rebukes him by saying, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
There are countless other examples in scripture that fall along these lines. The Pauline Epistles amount to a collection of church spankings, with the Apostle Paul wielding the paddle through divine inspiration. I invite you now to find more examples in scripture that clearly demonstrate Christ’s love for the church and post them to the comments below.
And what are we to conclude from this about Christ’s love for the church? Well, it was obviously a corrective love. Christ held the church accountable for straying from its duties and sacred obligations. He insisted that the church adhere to its holy purpose, and was quick to rebuke the church when it didn’t.
That’s obviously not romantic love, as romantic love, by its very nature, elevates women above being rebuked. I think it’s fair to say that it elevates women above the church, and you can now witness the results of Tolstoy’s warning about that throughout Churches in the Western world.
Now, with this as the foundational understanding, we can begin to consider how to love our wives as Christ loved the church. We can now have meaningful dialogue about how to deal with the inescapable leadership tests that all women employ in their relationships with men. That is, we can do all that if we have examined, broken down and rejected the notion of romance, a tool of Satan designed to undermine both family and church.
That can be an ongoing challenge. Romance entered the family the same way that crack entered the inner city, and with largely the same deleterious effect. Like crack, romance is addictive. It’s pretty on the outside, it’s seductive and feels incredibly good for a while, but ultimately ends in ruin for most who take the bait and run with it.
As I continue this series of talks, I’ll do so assuming you’ve broken the code; that you’ve taken the red pill and have wiped away fairy tale mirage. You’re now free, sans romanticism’s unhealthy sentiments and ridiculous expectations.
Now that we have the foundation corrected, we can begin our work in earnest.
Jana Xiolier posed the following questions to Peter Wright on July 4, 2024 .
Q. What do you think of our current culture and how it treats men?
A. In today’s culture, men are no longer appreciated for their presence or contributions and are routinely despised, especially when they fail to be of service to women and the State. This is because Western culture has lost its sense of family love – called storge by the Greeks – and in its place we now have atomised individuals driven by a narcissistic preoccupation with themselves; it’s a mindset that reduces men to mechanistic, utilitarian functionaries for the benefit of others, or to failures in that mandate.
Q. Do you feel fairly treated as a man?
A. If the benchmark for fairness is being treated with equal value, I think its reasonable to conclude that men are not – which I would say is demonstrated by the higher suicide rate of Western males. By way of comparison, Chinese women suicide in higher numbers than Chinese men, which also demonstrates the question of human value but with genders reversed.
Q. Do you think men have more power than women on a societal level?
A. Men more often hold the power of office, but what they do with that power deserves further consideration. To give an example, a local council where I live has eleven elected councillors (8 men and 3 women) who recently voted on whether to apportion money for celebrations of International Men’s Day in the city. The 8 men voted yes to funding, and the 3 women voted no! In a similar resolution voting to issue funds for International Women’s Day, the same 11 councillors voted yes, unanimously. My observation is that gendered use of power is generalizable to these examples; ie. men extend chivalry and consideration to women, but it is not reciprocated by women.
On a more general note I agree with Nancy Armstrong’s observation that there exists ‘two spheres’ of influence – one male sphere, and one female. She states that the interpersonal contract of romantic love and family relationships, which are directed largely by women, can often overrule the social contract controlled largely by male office holders. The result is that love can be the most powerful regulating convention between two parties – a possibility that is little considered by feminist writers in their rantings about males holding all the power in all domains.
Q. Do you think feminism is interested in equality?
A. Not at all. “Equality” on the feminist tongue serves as a euphemism for securing unearned and often unequal power for themselves, and for women more generally. This motive points to a definition of feminism that most people would agree with: i.e., feminism is the project for increasing the power of women.
Q. Does feminism help men?
A. Feminism sets out to actively harm men in many instances. Strangely enough, feminism may accidentally help men in some ways, especially when they get legislation passed for the purpose of empowering women, but men end up exploiting the same legislation to their own benefit. For example, legal redress for victims of sexual harassment or physical abuse, or even the ‘abuse excuse’ designed for women who murder a spouse are things men have used to their advantage, which elicited outrage by the feminist architects of these systems. In fact there has also been a trend of men claiming (but only on paper) that they are trans-women in order to secure multiple female-only privileges: for example, in Switzerland a man legally classified himself a woman on government documents and was able to retire younger and receive a pension at the same age as women. A man in Ecuador also changed his status to female, on paper, in order to gain custody of his children after divorce, as his country typically awards child custody to women. In Germany and also Norway, men have identified as women, on paper, in order to gain access to female-only university courses (eg. STEM quotas), or to gain access to female-only scholarships. These men did not “transition” in any material way, and were simply exploiting the gender privileges that have accumulated exclusively around the female sex.
Q. What do you think are the major issues facing men today?
A. First issues that come to mind are a lack of social valorization, which leads them to feeling worthless and paves the way for suicidal outcomes. A second major issue is the weight of imposed guilt that men carry around for being supposed members of a violent oppressor class. I could go on to list more men’s issues, but these two items are among the most crushing for men and boys, working in the background of their psyches, which means that rectifying these messages would lead to a number of improvements for men – and by extension for Western society as well.
Q. What do you think a true path towards equality between men and women would look like?
A. Socially that would look like an equal valuing of men and women, and would rest legislatively on ‘equality of opportunity’ in place of the current feminist push for ‘equality of outcomes’ (equity).
Q. Can you tell me of an experience of someone you know or yourself that was unfair and related to our culture’s treatment of men?
A. For me the heart breaker scenario is men in horrifically abusive relationships who can’t leave for good reasons, men who sometimes suffer the double horror of being falsely painted an abuser by the actual female abuser – then having the world come down on that same man and multiplying his pain. I’ve seen many men in this situation, and feeling alone is an understatement for what they are going through. If readers know any man in this position, I encourage you to consider helping them – whether materially, or even simply with some kind words and a listening ear which may prove the difference between him living versus suiciding.
Q. Do you know of any experiences of people who have experienced issues with women in their lives or with the court system etc etc.?
A. Too many to count, and I wager most readers here will feel the same – the system is rigged against men from beginning to end. Again, if you know any man going through a break-up and family courts, consider if you can offer them some kind of support.
Q. What do you think of traditional gender roles?
A. Another tricky question because there’s a variety of “traditional roles,” each one differing somewhat in its customs and conventions. For example in the West we have two primary traditionalisms: the first one is highly gynocentric (prioritising wife/woman somewhat over husband and children) and the second model is a non-gynocentric tradition which values gender roles on the basis that they exist as service roles within the wider family nexus; this is a model I can get behind. I wrote two detailed articles on traditional gender roles titled, The Tradwife Revisited and Anti-Gynocentrism Is The Only Anti-Feminism That Matters – which I’d encourage readers to read if they want more detail. To summarise those two articles, I praise traditional gender roles that are non-gynocentric and family oriented, with the caveat that we now live in a society that doesn’t support that model – in fact it actively tries to undermine it and rip it down.
Q. What do you think of intersectionality?
A. Advocates of the intersectional model claim its a way of seeing, and of being more inclusive toward marginalised people. In practice however, I’m seeing the opposite; the theory gets used for the sake of excluding people deemed too high on their ‘privilege wheel,’ and such exclusion is often based on wide categories like ‘whiteness’ or simply ‘maleness.’ On that basis I completely reject its interpretation & application.
Q. One last question. What would you say to the argument that the world is more child-centered than it is gynocentric? In that women are only centered, as much as they are, because they are useful to nature and that it is an attempt to center children, meaning that gynocentrism is an inaccurate way of describing society’s focus on the issues women face?
A. One popular hypothesis holds that women have always been more ‘centered’ than other family members who remained on the periphery, this being due to women’s usefulness in reproduction and in the raising of children. I reject this argument as another attempt to smuggle gynocentrism into families. The gynocentrism displayed today towards women who don’t have any children, and who plan to remain childless, is evidence that something other than child-centrism is at play in our centering of women. I think that something else amounts to a gendered narcissism that aims to place women ‘on a pedestal.’ Far from being an evolutionary adaptation for production of children, this practice results in the maladaptive outcome of less pairbonding between men and women, acrimonious relationships, higher divorce rates, and plummeting birth rates.
In traditional societies all members of the family are considered central to the functioning of the family unit, providing an environment of support for the raising of children. And if any member of the family suffered injury or needed extra support, it was based wholly on need and not on being female. For example, I recently conducted a poll on X that fleshes out people’s reactions to this question: “In a traditional society, which family member do you think men would have assisted out of a burning house first?” The answers to that question & the results are as follows:
In summary, all family members throughout our evolutionary history needed protection, or ‘centering’ to use your word, in order to be part of a strong, viable family team. But that isn’t called gynocentrism; it’s called storge as mentioned above. All family members were protected – as indicated in the poll. If women were vulnerable and needed protection occasionally, they would be. Men, too, were protected if they were injured, old, sick, or in need. Protection & provision has always been based on the shifting needs of various family members – whoever had the most immediate need was catered to, cared for and centered.
The following is a definition of ‘gynomyopia’ is by Grok AI (19/08/24)
* * *
What is gynomyopia?
Gynomyopia, as described in various contexts, primarily refers to a type of myopia (nearsightedness) where the focus is on issues or perspectives related to women to the exclusion or minimization of men’s issues or perspectives. Here’s how it’s commonly understood:
1. Feminist Context: In discussions around feminism or gender issues, “gynomyopia” has been used to describe a narrow focus on women’s experiences or issues, often to the point of ignoring or downplaying men’s issues. This term suggests a critique of certain feminist or gynocentric viewpoints that might overlook or dismiss the challenges men face, thereby presenting a skewed perspective of gender dynamics.
Example: If discussions about domestic violence focus almost exclusively on male perpetrators and female victims, without acknowledging cases where the gender roles are reversed, this could be labeled as gynomyopia.
2. Medical Context: While not directly related to the gender-focused definition, in medical terms, myopia generally refers to nearsightedness, where close objects are seen clearly, but objects farther away are out of focus. If we stretch this metaphor to social or political issues, gynomyopia could imply seeing “close” (women’s issues) clearly while having a blurred vision of “distant” (men’s issues) concerns.
However, there’s no widely recognized medical term “gynomyopia” in the context of eye conditions. The term seems to be a play on words, merging “gyne” (related to women) with “myopia” to metaphorically describe a limited viewpoint.
3. Cultural or Social Critique: In broader cultural discussions, gynomyopia might be used to critique media, education, or policy-making that disproportionately focuses on female-centric narratives or issues, potentially at the expense of addressing or understanding male experiences.
Example: Policies or educational programs might focus heavily on empowering women or addressing issues like the gender pay gap without equally considering areas where men might face disadvantages, like workplace deaths, homelessness, or educational underachievement in certain subjects.
The term “gynomyopia” isn’t universally recognized or used in academic or formal settings but has found a place in online discussions, particularly among those critiquing what they see as an imbalance in gender discourse. It’s worth noting that while this term highlights a critique of focus, it’s also part of a broader conversation about how gender issues are framed and discussed in society, often reflecting underlying biases or oversights in public discourse.
As mentioned in Part 1, ancient cultures recognized dozens of male archetypes – as showcased in the example of Greek gods where each mythological character is presented as a carefully differentiated expression of masculinity.
Despite our tendency to think of Zeus as the single Alpha male of the pack, it’s more accurate to say that each god, each archetype, demonstrates alpha qualities in a specific domain; each demonstrating a different kind of power.
Zeus was Alpha in his political leadership, Ares in martial skill, Hephaestus in labour consciousness and artisan mastery, Apollo on intellectual pursuits, and so on. Conversely each of these characters are Beta, if not Sigma in the areas outside of their specialities, as demonstrated in the instances where each god was subjected to moments of dominance by another deity.
Looked at in this polytheistic way, modern descriptions of Alpha, Beta, Sigma etc. appear not only reductionistic as applied to real men (men who may excel in one area and not another), but also frankly gynocentric in the way each ranking is defined by an overriding criteria of whether a man is pleasing to, or useful for women. Is gynocentric appeal the only way to assess Alpha value?
By way of contrast none of the classic male gods (archetypes) described by the Greeks were based on what women want, which Alpha, Beta, Sigma etc. designations have unfortunately come to be defined today. Instead, they was based on special areas of male competency.
To summarize, humans are not like bears or wolves who become Alpha based on simple formulae like strength and bite force. Alpha masculinity in humans can demonstrate superiority via a plurality of competencies, a fact not lost on the makers of Marvel movies which showcase a shifting mantle of ‘Alpha’ based on the individual skillsets called for in a given (and always changing) situation. The sooner we jettison our singular notions of Alpha, the sooner we can get down to appreciating the rich diversity of masculine potentials.
The following is a small excerpt from chapter 3 – Romantic Gift-Giving Of Mature Consumers: A Storgic Love Paradigm, in Gifts, Romance, and Consumer Culture, edited by Yuko Minowa & Russell W. Belk. The excerpt provides a reasonable outline of storgic love, though commits the error of ascribing storge to “later life” when, in fact, it is strongly present throughout the life cycle.
Greetings, and welcome back to the 425 podcast, where the only place we kneel is before the cross. If you recall, last week I interviewed Dr. David Edgington about his book, The Abusive Wife. It was a fantastic discussion of which I was honored to be a part. That said, I’d like to do a bit of dissection on our interview, as it is germane to what I believe is the most important discussion among Christian men since the Reformation, and likely before that as well.
While there was much that David and I agreed on, there were a few points of contention that I want to focus on in this talk, but before I do I want to make clear that I hold the good pastor in high regard. I fully expect to meet him in heaven some day. Whatever differences we have, they do not diminish my respect for what he’s done, and the significance of his voice in this badly needed discussion.
In writing The Abusive Wife, David challenged the modern narrative about men and women, and in doing so he didn’t hold back criticism of the modern church and the egregious bias against men so common to modern clergy. He spoke truth to power, challenging the church to cast aside its blind, often hostile prejudice against men, and its utter refusal to acknowledge and confront evil behavior in women. In doing this, he clearly emulated Christ, challenging religious authorities to recognize and turn away from their hypocrisy and to instead honor God’s word as it is written.
With that in mind, I offer this talk to David as a loving invitation to explore this important subject with me more in the future, and an opportunity to challenge any faulty conclusions I might make in this review of our discussion. I write this now, keenly aware that he is not here to immediately rebut anything I’m saying. I leave that door wide open for him to do so, at any time of his choosing.
A short synopsis of our talk confirms that we both see the manifestation of the problem with the church in the same light. We both see the church making men accountable for their own sin, and assigning them blame for the sin of their wives. That is, when the church even recognizes the sin of the wife. Often, usually, it doesn’t. And has no need to since the man will held at fault either way. The church seems to recognize that a married man and wife are one flesh, but somehow forgets that they are still two souls, responsible as individuals to God for their sins.
We both recognize the problem of reviling wives who spread threat narratives and other false accusations about the husband; acts of relational aggression so common to modern women. We also both recognize the reviling wives who seek to turn children away from their earthly fathers, alienating them at the children’s emotional expense as a way to wage war within the marriage. It’s a problem that escalates during the divorce, which the church often encourages women to file in defiance of God’s word. And finally, we both recognize the deeply entrenched, seemingly intractable resistance to addressing any of these problems, both in the church and the rest of society at large.
Where we begin to differ on all of this is on the problem’s etiology. David attributes the blindly destructive tolerance of women’s sin to feminism’s influence in the pulpit and pews. And to be sure, there is plenty of evidence backing that idea. Feminism is a widely practiced ideology, even by those who claim not to be feminists, and it permeates nearly every aspect of modern human existence, especially in the west. It casts women as an oppressed class, perpetual victims of an imagined form of overbearing patriarchy that doesn’t exist and actually never did. But that particular die has nonetheless been cast. Women have warmed up en masse to the victim role. Indeed they’ve wallowed in it, and men have lined up across the western world to validate their ideas and promise to make things better.
So, the summarized view of David here, as I understand it, is that people have been corrupted by feminist ideology that requires them to view women, not as default sinners, but as default, innocent victims with little to no personal agency. This bad script kicks in full force whenever there is marital conflict when the man, who is by the same corrupted script, presumed sinful and blameworthy. Now, right-minded people, in particular Christians, abhor mistreatment and seek to right wrongs- to fight sin. Christians of both sexes see the protection of women as a Godly mandate. This setup provides a perfect breeding ground for viciously misemployed chivalry. Woman in peril? Not in my church! Come, brothers, gather your torches and pitchforks!
Ostensibly, it all makes perfect sense, even though it often results in horrendous injustice and the complete destruction of families. Feminism, as a destructive force on the family, is just doing to Church families exactly what it’s done to everyone else’s family for the past 60 years. And to the Occam’s Razor guy in me, that explanation checks a lot of boxes.
But, I respectfully submit that there’s more to this picture. During our discussion, David brought up the Song of Songs, suggesting that this, which he referred to in rather passionate romantic terms, serves as both the model of love expressed in our relationship with our wives, and with our lord. Here’s that bit from the interview.
Let’s stop there for a moment and take a deeper look at this. I think part of the problem here is in the definition of the terms. David referred to the Song of Songs, or the Song of Solomon, as descriptive of romantic love. But here’s part of the problem. Romance, as it is known and practiced today, has nothing to do with anything scriptural or spiritual. Zero, zip, nada. If you do a word search for any biblical reference to “romance,” you’ll do so in vain. That word, nor its equivalent, ever appears anywhere in scripture.
And while the Song of Songs sounds romantic, indeed it appears to gush romance in parts, it more accurately resembles Eros, the timeless motive of human sexual longing which, at its more pathological extreme, results in infatuated obsession. In philosophical sense, particularly in the works of Plato, “Eros” is used to describe the passionate, often irrational desire that drives human behavior, especially in the context of sexually infatuated attraction and longing. That reality no doubt played a significant role in the ancient controversy among Jewish and Christian bible scholars about its inclusion in the Septuagint. And while the Song of Songs is firmly established as part of the biblical canon in both Jewish and Christian traditions, there continues to be discussion and debate about its interpretation and the reasons for its inclusion.
I will revisit that in just a bit, but right now the important point to make is that romance isn’t just an emotional or sexual state, or a combination of the two. It’s not just two lovers enraptured with each other. Nor is it the intimacy produced by two becoming one flesh. Nor is it anything, I assert, that springs forth naturally from the obedient Christian heart. It is certainly, and without question, not something prescribed by scripture. There is no biblical instruction for marriages to be based in romance, especially as at the time of its authorship, the idea of a marriage being based on romance, or even Eros, would have been considered insane and incredibly irregular. Most marriages were arranged by the families of the bride and groom. Parents and other family members played a significant role in choosing a suitable partner, focusing on factors such as social status, economic benefits, and family alliances. There is no evidence that being hot is part of the equation. Solomon didn’t marry 700 wives and have 300 concubines for Romantic reasons. He did it for political expedience and to expand his sphere of influence. As for the average person, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that a romantically based marriage was even thinkable.
Romance, which for some reason many people are convinced has always been the standard for marriage, has nothing to do with the kind of love that can only be gained from extensive shared life experience. Romance is actually just the codification of infatuation and sexual passion into an ethos that serves women, and only women, at the expense of men. Like it or not, that also means it’s at the expense of the family. That’s hardly a way to promote the order and structure for marriage as is clearly prescribed in the Word of God.
Romance requires men to defend women’s honor, even when they don’t have any. Romance requires men to lower themselves to appease women, and to submit to their desires, even when they’re behaving like tyrants. Romance is the poorest metaphor I can think of for a relationship with God.
Allow me, if you will, to bore you with some history. The word “Romance” itself, in its various forms, began to appear in the vernacular languages of Europe around the 12th century, some 2,000 years after the Song of Songs was written. It initially referred to stories and poems, which often involved tales of gallantry, adventure, and courtly, or what we now call romantic, love.
As I have alluded to in other talks, romantic love owes its roots to medieval Europe and was loosely fashioned after the military code of chivalry that had feudal tenants and vassals kneeling before and pledging fealty to a royal lord. I say loosely because in the old feudal system, there were considerations given for pledging blood and sword to royalty. Even Kings owed something in return for the loyalty given them. The new, romantic narrative of love fully pedestalized women, placing them above man in worth and standing, and was peddled to the masses by the powerful and influential courts of Europe. Like feminism, it regarded women as untouchable and created a one-way power dynamic that we see acted out across the western world to this day. This irrational, romantic model of love eventually commandeered our collective consciousness, giving birth to a system in which women weren’t just to be courted, they were to be wined and dined, pampered, indulged, fawned over and deferred to at every turn because doing otherwise is considered both unloving and unmanly. If you visit an average church, you might just hear it called unchristian.
Now, even though this model for love was eventually embraced by the western world, it’s only been in the past 150 years that people began to marry based on it. In the scheme of things, it’s a very new, experimental way to approach marriage. And by the looks of things, the experiment is not working out that well. Once social and legal pressures were taken off of romantic marriages to stay intact, those marriages began to dissolve like sugar in hot water. To quote Denis de Rougemont’s 1939 classic on romantic love:
“Romance feeds on obstacles, short excitations, and partings; marriage, on the contrary, is made up of wont, daily propinquity, and growing accustomed to one another. Romance calls for ‘the faraway love’ of the troubadours; while marriage calls for love of ‘one’s neighbor’. Where, then, a couple have married in obedience to a romance, it is natural that the first time a conflict of temperament or of taste becomes manifest, the parties should each ask themselves: “Why did I marry?’ And it is no less natural that, obsessed by the universal propaganda in favor of romance, each should seize the first occasion to fall in love with somebody else. And thereupon it is perfectly logical to decide to divorce, so as to obtain from the new love, which demands a fresh marriage, a new promise of happiness—three words, ‘marriage’, ‘love’, ‘happiness’, being synonyms. Thus, remedying boredom with a passing fever, ‘he for the second time, she for the fourth’, American men and women go in quest of ‘adjustment’. They do not seek it, however, in the old situation, the one guaranteed—‘for better, for worse’—by a vow. They seek it, on the contrary, in a fresh ‘experience’ regarded as such, and affected from the start by the same potentialities of failure as those which preceded it.” [Love in The Western World]
To recap; in the Song of Solomon we read of a reciprocal desire, a love that flows equally between the lovers, which by its nature differs from the uneven display of romantic gynocentrism. As described by C.S. Lewis, romantic love positions the male lover as abject before a woman who actively adopts the role of his pedestalized superior:
“Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim. Here is a service of love closely modeled on the service which a feudal vassal owes to his lord. The lover is the lady’s ‘man’. He addresses her as ‘midons,’ which etymologically represents not ‘my lady’ but ‘my lord’.” [The Allegory of Love]
Unlike the mutual display of love in Songs, Lewis describes the attitude of romantic love as ‘a feudalisation of love,’ one which necessitates a man lower himself on proverbial and literal bent knees in permanent obedience to an elevated women. Suffice to say it’s an error to attribute romantic love, at least as described by Lewis and other authorities, to the love portrayed in Song of Songs – or indeed to love as described anywhere in the Bible. The conflation of these different kinds of love can only result in a chimera – a creature cobbled together from parts of different animals to create a monstrous hybrid. I would encourage David and others to dig deep into these points of contention and, as always, I welcome discussion, feedback, or dissent in the comments below.
Despite this glaring inequity in power, the romantic ethos, valuing women over men, contorting and exploiting the human instinct to protect and provide for women, continues. And it continues to be conflated with the kind of love that should guide a marriage. That gives us precisely what David and I discussed in our interview about his book. The men in church whose default setting is to persecute any man with a woman’s finger pointed at him aren’t Christians acting to combat sin and bring their fellows into alignment with God’s will. They are medieval knights in shining armor, defending the innocent and fair maiden from harm. It’s a kind of twisted harem seeking by thirsty boys longing for women’s admiration and approval. That has nothing to do with feminism, and everything to do with romantic gynocentrism.
Finally, David and I touched on the topic of marriage itself, and more specifically the men who look at the modern marital landscape and decided to opt out. I pointed out Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where he advised single men and widows to remain unmarried.
Here’s a clip of that interaction:
OK, let’s dig into this a little bit, as well. If I am reading David correctly here, he’s insinuating, or at least speculating that 1st Corinthians 7 could possibly be the result of Paul’s personal experience with marriage; that perhaps in Paul’s life previous to becoming a Christian he was married to a reviling wife, or that there was some other marital experience that led him to reject marriage and suggest that rejection all unmarried and widowed men.
But here’s the problem with that. It totally discounts the fact that Paul’s words are in fact not Paul’s words. They are the words of our Lord and Savior, expressed through Paul’s divinely inspired writing. Asserting otherwise reduces everything he said to some kind of divorce bitterness, or perhaps a history of being abused by a wife. I’m sorry, but if we accept that explanation it requires us to deny and reject God’s word, and it would call into question every line of scripture from the holy bible.
From 2 Timothy 3:16-17
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (NASB)
I understand the difficulty in coming to terms with this. The Apostle Paul, by every indication, would clearly be called red pill, and indeed MGTOW in modern times. A dedicated bachelor with no interest whatsoever in the distraction of marrying a woman. As he said in 1 Corinthians 7:32-34,
“I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided.”
Dear listener, that is either the wisdom of the Lord speaking to you through His chosen apostle, or it’s just the resentful musings of a man soured on marriage due to his personal experience. It can’t be both. And we don’t get to choose which version we like based on the argument we’re making at the time.
Now, moving on, I return to the beginning of this conversation, of a church that has lost its way, ignoring God’s word in order to side with women, who are now perceived universally as the victims of men. It might be easy to conclude that we’re discussing two different topics, one being what marriage ought to be based upon, and the other whether men should engage in marriage to begin with. I think the two are actually intimately and inextricably bound together.
First, and this is something neither David nor I addressed in our discussion, the church abdicated its responsibility for marriage quite some time ago. Any moral authority the church had over the marriage covenant died in 1639, when the first license for marriage was issued by the state of Massachusetts and honored by the church. The church has been compliant ever since, injecting the state into the covenant meant to be strictly between a man, a woman and God. By its complicity, the church removed God from authority over marriage and replaced Him with the state. It’s worth mentioning that here, but rather than sidetracking any further now, I will be addressing it in a podcast at some point in the future.
For now, if we are going to address the problem of the reviling wife, we cannot do so in any earnestness without acknowledging the bad script that got us here. All of it.
We are now living with congregations full of entitled, demanding women who are better described as Disney style princesses than adult women ready to take on the awesome responsibilities of a husband and children. Few to none would qualify as a Proverbs 31wife. Sure, feminism has acted like an accelerant, but only on a fire that was already long burning. To assume that feminism is the singular underlying evil demonstrates the myopic vision that a romanticized view of women engenders and demands.
The phenomenon of romantic gynocentrism has rendered the average women unfit for matrimony. It matters not if she’s a pink-haired termagant in an Antifa T-shirt, or if she’s a churchgoing, demure and soft spoken schoolmarm longing for the days when men were men. Both women pine for the power and authority over men that romantic gynocentrism affords them. These are two kinds of women who typically don’t like each other, but it’s not because they’re different. Under the difference in dress and social manner, they are one in the same. They are just fighting over who will benefit from the mandated chivalry of men.
These two kinds of women, regardless of their apparent differences, are on the same team when accusations have been levied against a man. They both rally men to inflict their will on the victim.
The deleterious effect isn’t limited to women. The effect of romantic mandates, as so aptly described by Lewis and De Rougemont, has transformed men into weak-willed sycophants, thinly disguised houseboys who settle for building a façade of leadership and male strength, asserting their Godly authority as long as their alleged better half isn’t listening. And to their disgrace, they can be reliably counted upon to add muscle to the witch hunts that the women instigate. They are the chief enablers of the reviling wife.
Of course, accepting all this puts one at a heck of a crossroads. What do you imagine would happen to a church, should it echo the sentiments of Lewis and De Rougemont and challenge Christians to abandon their pursuit of such a distorted and unchristian version of love? What would happen to any church that urged women off of their pedestals and into the real world? …………….. That’s right. Total collapse. Women would leave Sunday service fast enough to go get breakfast. And the men, true to the romantic ethos, would just be a half-step behind them.
And that, my brothers, is where we are at. Romantic gynocentrism has a stranglehold on the western church because it has a stranglehold on the western world. And until men are willing to seek God’s approval more than women’s, it will remain as such.
As for the Song of Songs; its intended message and the reason for its inclusion in the Septuagint, I am sure speculation and debate will continue about that long past my lifetime. For now, in the big picture view, I still see a man of purported great wisdom, who like his father before him, fell from grace because of his relationship with women. I see that book as much more warning than prescription.
Let’s turn for a moment to Proverbs 20:5, which states: “The purpose in a man’s heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out.”
Let’s consider that “The purpose in a man’s heart,” refers to the inner world of a man. His yearnings, goals, intentions, ambitions, and dreams. Now, it says, “is like deep water,” meaning that it is hidden from plain view, from others, and often from the man himself. The totality of his purpose and the core of his beliefs are concealed in the deep, often inaccessible well of a man’s heart.
And now, this critical ending declaration, “But a man of understanding will draw it out.” A man of wisdom, a man with insight, a man who has the ability to search for and find that which is hidden, even his own thoughts and intentions. This is a man with the requisite skill and integrity to plumb the depths of his inner most being and bring light to the truth. And this, I argue, is what is missing from the discussion about romantic gynocentrism. It is a superficial thing, unsuited to examination or testing. Its dictates cannot and will not bear scrutiny. And it sits out of reach, wreaking havoc as almost all men live in willful ignorance of its existence. The first rule of romantic gynocentrism is that you don’t talk about romantic gynocentrism. It’s an unhelpful way to begin a discussion.
And that brings me to the really important part of this dialogue. During my talk with David I asked him what we should do about the problems we both agreed we were plaguing the church and plaguing the relationship between men and women. What do we tell young men about all this? How do we actually start to fix the problem? David is working on a sequel to The Abusive Wife where he intends to expound upon answers to that very question. I look forward to that when the time comes.
Meanwhile, I’d like to offer my pitch for where we start to set things right, beginning with the namesake of this podcast, Ephesians 4:25. We first must quit lying to young men. We need to stop indoctrinating them into a Hollywood fantasy that turns out to be a rigged game against them. Having challenged and overcome our own misguided thinking, we can make sure they at least see a more sane, scripturally sound way to view love. We need to counsel them about what the bible actually tells us about the sexes, the folly of pedestalizing women, and the nonbiblical nature of romantic gynocentrism. We should advise every young man in every church in the west that if he is ever accused of any kind of wrong doing by a woman, that his church family, more likely than not, will turn on him like a quiet, smiling lynch mob. He’ll be thrown directly under the bus with assurances he’ll be prayed for. Tell every young man that if he ends up in a divorce, he will get crushed by a court system designed to ruin him. And finally, importantly, that the Lord has explicitly provided a path away from all of this insanity in 1st Corinthians 7.
There’s no other way to say it, gentlemen. If we want to look past the problem of the reviling wife and start addressing why the church enables all her drama and abuse, we need to quit living in the fairy tale of romantic gynocentrism, return to scripture and rediscover our willingness to speak the truth.
If you know young Christian men, please send them the discussion David and I had, as well as this podcast. Send it to clergy as well, to elders and deacons, but don’t expect much. Most of them would rather eat glass than upset midon.
All of this makes me so very thankful for you, my brothers in Christ. We’re among a small number of people who can draw it out; whose hearts yearn for the light. And I truly believe we are the hope for the Christian church. It may take a hundred years, but it’s on all of us to get the ball rolling.
Till then, I wish you all the best. Praise the name of Jesus Christ.
* * *
You can listen to the video version of this article here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.