Bnonn’s Household Theology

A blogger named Bnonn has recently arrived on Dalrock’s radar by accusing him and associates of being woman-hating cultists. Not the most original accusation ever made against us but one commenter thought Bnonn was reasonably patriarchal, anti-feminist and pro-Scripture. Having already made light of the guy threatening to make a website against us, I felt obligated to check and see if perhaps the guy was a potential ally who got started off on the wrong foot with us.

Well… he has problems I have trouble even defining despite years in the Manosphere. On the one hand, Bnonn took the Red Pill. On the other hand, he coughed the Pill back up and invented “household theology”, my term, to justify women holding authority over men in violation of plain Scripture… which is the feminist agenda and surely not patriarchy from any perspective.

The nature of the sexual marketplace today is very different than throughout most of human history. In most cultures and times, it is not a cold, brutal fact of life in some winners-and-losers sense. Focusing on the United States, even thirty years ago it was extraordinarily uncommon for anyone to remain unmarried. Somehow, everyone seemed to find a spouse; by the age of 30 over 85% of people had married, and by the age of 45 over 95% had.See Percentage of U.S. women never married, by age, 1980 & 2015. Although the numbers do wax and wane through US history, the times when they were especially low were the result of war. But today, in the space of one peacetime generation, these numbers have changed dramatically: at age 30, over 40% of people are still unmarried; by age 45, they’ve just managed to catch up with the 30-year-olds of 1980. That’s a huge shift, but the fact that it has shifted should illustrate that it’s not pairing off per se which is the issue. Something else is going on.

That’s an odd conclusion. How did he come to think that people are still pairing off yet not getting married? The situation is obviously not common-law marriages replacing licensed marriages.

What is that thing? Most simply, I think it is the teardown of the household.

He has this theology about the household being the building block of society… not meaning the nuclear family because nations also count as households. It sounds a lot like Papism but he wants it applied Old Testament-style, not apostolic-succession style. A Papist Judaizer?

It is not the teardown of marriage, as you will generally hear Christians lament. That is too reductionistic. If it were merely marriage which was under attack, Christianity would offer a more effective bulwark—but lots of Christians value marriage, yet marriage rates in the assembly are down and divorce rates are up.

Wild idea here… maybe the institution of marriage isn’t supernaturally off-limits to the devil. Marriage must be fine because the Church would never allow marriage to be torn down! /facepalm

Neither is it the teardown of the patriarch, as many red pill pundits say. If that were so, then the mere reinstatement of patriarchy would solve the problem—but it typically produces cultism instead.

This is probably where his tweet of us being cultists comes from. We think men should wield authority; he thinks the household should wield authority. And women are part of the household. Hmm.

Memo to Bnonn, patriarchy is men having authority over women. It’s not about resurrecting the Biblical Patriarchs or installing new ones. In a few moments, in fact, you’ll be the one calling for Priest-Kings.

Rather, the effects we’re seeing today are the result of the household itself suddenly collapsing after over a century of having its key structural elements progressively weakened and removed. Tearing down the household obviously does involve tearing down marriage and the patriarch at the same time, but it’s a mistake to conflate the struts with the structure. When we do that, we miss the forest for the trees.

This is him spitting up the Red Pill.

For instance, I believe this teardown began much longer ago than most people realize: it started with the rejection of biblical republicanism in favor of flat democracy, rather than with what we’d today think of as egalitarianism or liberalism or feminism. Once social order began to be determined entirely at the individual level, with each person exercising equal, autonomous “micro-rule” through their personal vote, everything we’re seeing today inevitably followed.

Sigh. He certainly talks like a Papist, one of those people so cognitively dependent upon Church structure that he still thinks Protestants are the root of all evil. If only we would obey the authorities properly then we’d all have nice domestic wives… or something to that effect.

By the way, I’ve noticed Papists in Protestant circles also. I don’t use the term to mean the RCC specifically. There’s a certain mindset that just can’t handle life without an externally provided framework. Thus, I now distinguish between Catholics who follow Christ and Papists who follow Rome (or in Prot Land, Christians who always obey the State).

Bnonn’s Theology of the Household

To know what is appropriate for women in business, we need to first go back to what is appropriate for women in the household, and then figure out how business relates to that.

This is because the household is the primitive unit of society. It is the originator of order in the world. Adam’s household was also the original kingdom. As God’s son, Adam was a vassal king, representing God’s rule in creation.

This is the literary crime of eisegesis, the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

God is the originator of order in the world; I’ve never heard Him be described as a household in Scripture or even Trinitarian theology. Similarly, “Adam’s household” is a concept created by Bnonn, not Scripture. Adam & Eve never even had a marriage, so far as we’re told. Adam was God’s creation, not God’s son. Only Christ is God’s son; the famous John 3:16.

Bnonn claims these are households in order to support his preexisting household theology.

[Adam’s] house’s mission was to expand and carry on God’s work of establishing right order in the world.

No. The command was “be fruitful and multiply”, not “restore right order”. The best way for Adam to have achieved the latter would have been to refuse to reproduce and died for his crime, as justice demanded. Intentionally breeding more humans condemned to sin, that was God’s Will but not restoration of “right order”.

Furthermore, if that command was to all humanity then God contradicted himself in Christ’s teaching about eunuchs, that one could be a voluntary eunuch for God’s sake.

Furthermore, God imposed curses on Adam & Eve that they were powerless to undo.

(compare how Jesus, in the gospel which especially emphasizes his sonship, repeatedly speaks of doing only what the Father has given him to do)

Yes. God sent Christ to undo the works of the devil, which all humanity from Adam to now could not. That is why Christ is my savior and Adam is not.

So a household is a kingdom in microcosm. As it expands and becomes many households, the kingdom in turn expands into its fullness. But it does not fundamentally change form; it only grows into maturity. This is why Israel as a national kingdom is still called the “house of Israel” (e.g. Exodus 40:38).

This is the crux of his theology and is obviously not based on Scripture.

The purpose of marriage is to symbolize the ideal relationship between Christ and the Church. Wielding authority over third parties is not part of that symbolism. A man’s authority over his wife is not a king’s authority over his subjects.

God usually chooses evil men to wield power in this reality. He was the one who raised up Pharaoh to disobey Him, who chose Saul and Rehoboam and other disobedient and rebellious people… Jonah and Samson being notable. Having power over other humans, even having supernatural powers, is NOT REPEAT NOT an endorsement of virtue or proof of divine favor.

Israel was the literal father of the nation Israel, something made possible only by God’s careful planning. Defining nations by genealogy in the New Testament era is a hopeless task. The genetic permutations and combinations simply cannot be unraveled.

God carries his rule into the world through the fathers of households.

Scripture disagrees. When God acted through human intermediaries, He did so through men without regard to their marital status. Genesis Patriarchs, Moses, priests, prophets, kings, apostles and even His enemies. Only the accounts of Ruth, Hosea and Jesus involved a household and that by biological and genealogical necessity.

As a fast counterexample, Jeremiah surely carried God’s rule into the world yet God explicitly forbade him from marrying. Apostle Paul was also an element of bringing God’s kingdom into the world and he was glad to NOT be married at the time. They were not households.

Every father rules his own house, and as these houses multiply, the wiser fathers work together to rule their clans and tribes, all the way up to the national level.

That… is astonishingly wishful thinking. Which is it, “work together” or “rule their clans and tribes”? These are mutually exclusive concepts of gov’t. And why, in light of recorded history, does he think the wiser fathers rise to the top?

Notice he slipped in “up to the national level”. I think Bnonn doesn’t understand that nations are different entities from tribes. One is ethnically defined and the other is politically defined. He assumes that God wants all nations to resemble ancient Israel, conveniently forgetting both that Israel was uniquely designed for specific purposes and that the New Testament did away with any concern for genealogy and its related tribalism. “God can raise children of Abraham out of these rocks!”

The purpose of this is always right order: establishing and maintaining the relationships between people and God, and between people and people. A father is a priest and a king. This is the system we see Moses establish in Exodus 18; indeed, the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 is married to a town patriarch who sits in the gate to judge disputes among the people, and to ensure the right order, the shalom of the houses under his care.

“A father is a priest and king?” Only within marriage, to honor the symbology of it but again, that situation does not involve authority over third parties.

What’s this about Exodus 18? That chapter describes Moses delegating his judicial responsibilities on the advice of his father-in-law. The criteria for new judges, per verse 21, was “capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain”. No mention of fatherhood at all. Also, no mention of allowing female judges. Also, no mention of priests, which in Moses’ time were Aaron and the Levites only.

Bnonn is twisting Proverbs 31 to claim that her husband’s household included ruling the town. This sort of eisegesis is how he claims all human authority is a “household”.

This brings us back to women in households and businesses. The virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 is a businesswoman. She assesses and buys a field; she plants a vineyard and sells the produce; she produces linen and trades it to merchants. But she does all this not as her own boss, nor as an employee, but as a wife. This is because the household was, until very recently, the basic unit of both order and production in society.

This is such a twisted reading of Proverbs 31 that I don’t hardly know where to begin. She’s a businesswoman who only does business as a wife, which makes no sense, and she operates a textiles factory but not as a boss or employee, and her household is full of both children and commercial vineyards.

The household is the basic unit of production in society? No, MEN are the basic unit of production. Don’t pretend women can work the mines or ranches. They need to keep home with the kids and make life more pleasant for her family, that’s what Proverbs 31 tries to say.

When the Bible speaks against women ruling, it is speaking against them representing God as father and king. It is speaking against them having priestly jurisdiction over how we must relate to God or others. But it is not speaking against them representing God at all, since otherwise they would not be the image of God! Women are made expressly to complete man’s representation of God, by filling and refining the world.

Translation, it’s okay for a woman to have authority over men so long as some man, somewhere has authority over her. This is what all his wordiness was leading towards.

Churchians do this same thing with marriage counseling. “Is your wife not obeying you? I shall intervene as God’s representative and determine whether she is right to disobey you!” Bnonn’s contribution is replacing the local priest with President Trump. That is not progress.

Bnonn is lying about women being made to complete man’s representation of God. God made Eve because Adam was lonely, not incomplete… remember God actually removed a rib from Adam in the process… and this “completion” was the person who led Adam into rebellion against God.

In fact, Adam being lonely is an image of God being lonely. He does not need humanity but He desires our company very much… enough to endure the Crucifixion to secure our freewilled loyalty.

For a woman to have authority in business is fine, because production is both a masculine and feminine mandate. A female executive is not representing God’s father-rule. But the business world itself is demented in that it has torn a rift between households and production, and this creates some very thorny difficulties for women to negotiate—difficulties they often negotiate poorly, and end up regretting when they are older. It masculinizes many women—short hair, power suits, bossy attitudes—and makes them both unattractive and miserable. If it is at all possible, it is far better for a woman to focus on stewarding the production of her own household than of an emaciated household-knockoff.

Let me close by simplifying this paragraph: Bnonn is unwilling to tell women No. Just like Adam in the Garden. Just like the complementarians. Just like the feminists.

Women are not to wield authority over men. Full stop.


19 thoughts on “Bnonn’s Household Theology

  1. ‘Women are not to wield authority over men. Full stop.’

    What I don’t get (perhaps because many of these haven’t read Ben Sira/Sirach/Ecclesiasticus)…is that it says in Scripture the ONE place a woman has authority over a man.

    Chapter 3 verse 2

    ‘For the Lord sets a father in honor over his children and confirms a mother’s authority over her sons.’


  2. Really what Adam did in eating the forbidden fruit was proclaiming his disobedience to God’s command to not eat it. He in a sense traded patriarchal authority to be under the authority of his wife.

    When Jesus came He was fully obedient to the Father’s will in order to restore humanity to the Father so that we could become adopted sons. If we live by the flesh…that is pull an Adam, we will always have this tendency to fall back to letting women or wives have the authority.


  3. I think it’s clear bnonn and co’s ministry is based on their eschatological position.

    They view any shift towards patriarchy as becoming a cult, as if a major course correction was taking place, as opposed to getting back on a proper course.


  4. This is important, as their position (depending on the degree of preterism) basically believes that over time, they bind Satan and the majority of the population comes to Christ. So reality that contradicts this narrative has to be reinterpreted to mean something else. This is also why you recognize elements of their position as being papal. It’s a high church tradition that wishes to parody Rome.

    This is why post millennialism is nearly a separate religion from premillennialism. I The entire Old Testament is interpreted differently.


  5. Most will argue that Ben Sira is not authoritative. Even the Jews in Christ’s time did not recognize it as such, and for good reason: if you study proverbs and ecclesiastes, you will find that Ben Sira is a knock off version, spoken from bitterness, with a few funny points.


  6. This is the best thing I’ve heard on the Bible, nature, science, and gender.

    I’ve never heard of the concept of “household” before other than as a census metric: “there are 100 hearths (households) in this county.”

    The author you linked is not a good writer or theologian, so I bet his theology will be ignored. For my part, I find both the Bible and nature to be very red-pilled. God is the author of both. Not everything is explained in the Bible. Much is supposed to be handed-down (tradition) or learned from observation or other means. For example, how to change a tire is never explained in the Bible. Too many men come along and ignore the clear teachings about women submitting in a marriage and obeying their husbands “in all things” and try to form elaborate work-arounds based on novel readings of clear passages and other texts that are less clear (Proverbs 31). Notice, though, that unbelievers don’t need the Bible to figure out gender roles and marriage: it’s obvious. I thought it was hilarious when John Piper wrote that women shouldn’t be cops because of some theological reason that made no sense. No, women shouldn’t be cops because men are larger, stronger, and much more violent. Duh.

    This whole debate is a mess and won’t rectify itself until some collapse happens and women can’t go outdoors unescorted.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. ‘The Catholic Church and Churches of the East receive the book as inspired, inerrant, and canonical. Sirach is also included in our oldest biblical manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (ca. A.D. 350), Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 360), and Codex Alexandrinus (ca. A.D. 400). In other words, the early Church in both the East and West revered this book and read it in Church…not to mention Jews before the Incarnation of Christ.’


  8. Ill disagree on those points and sources, but we will end up back at square one, and it is counterproductive in general (especially since I really enjoy reading your comments on various blogs). I will equate the catholic v. protestant debate to debates within protestantism itself (sola scriptura v. … Douglas wilson and friend’s retarded interpretations). The only question I ask, is if you perceive a consistency in the “voice” and “message” of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Ben Sira.

    I think there is practical advice that is wise within Ben Sira, but some portions come off as hating the feminine.


  9. What you call ‘hating the feminine’ I call hating evil women. If Boxer is lurking…even he recognizes this.

    Women – Evil and Virtuous (Ch. 25 12-25)

    Worst of all wounds is that of the heart, worst of all evils is that of a woman.
    Worst of all sufferings is that from one’s foes, worst of all vengeance is that of one’s enemies:
    No poison worse than that of a serpent, no venom greater than that of a woman.
    With a dragon or a lion I would rather dwell than live with an evil woman.
    Wickedness changes a woman’s looks, and makes her sullen as a female bear.
    When her husband sits among his neighbors, a bitter sigh escapes him unawares.

    There is scarce any evil like that in a woman; may she fall to the lot of the sinner!
    Like a sandy hill to aged feet is a railing wife to a quiet man.
    Stumble not through woman’s beauty, nor be greedy for her wealth;
    The man is a slave, in disgrace and shame, when a wife supports her husband.
    Depressed mind, saddened face, broken heart – this from an evil wife.
    Feeble hands and quaking knees – from a wife who brings no happiness to her husband.
    In woman was sin’s beginning, and because of her we all die.
    Allow water no outlet, and be not indulgent to an erring wife.
    If she walks not by your side, cut her away from you.

    CHAPTER 26 (1-4)

    Happy the husband of a good wife, twice-lengthened are his days;
    A worthy wife brings joy to her husband, peaceful and full is his life.
    A good wife is a generous gift bestowed upon him who fears the LORD;
    Be he rich or poor, his heart is content, and a smile is ever on his face.


  10. Would you even dispute this?

    ‘Depressed mind, saddened face, broken heart – this from an evil wife.
    Feeble hands and quaking knees – from a wife who brings no happiness to her husband.’


  11. I think these two were meant to reply to me. I am not saying those quotes are not true, it doesn’t have the “feel,” and “voice,” that the rest of scripture does. So I dont place any authoritative value on it, and would not make a scriptural argument based on it. However, I would use it as evidence that our human nature doesn’t change- and it is valuable in that sense (which is why so many RP people flock to it)


  12. It has a feel that someone went through proverbs, and inverted the wisdom.

    There is a quote in Ben Sira that I personally find hilarious, and that is to stay away from women who sing and play instruments


  13. The theology is in line with Wilson, who has a growing influence in the PCA, as it falls apart. On one end is Tim Keller, and at the other is Wilson. Rather than dividing the word of truth, and standing on that, people tend to pick sides based on personalities. They don’t like Keller, so they think they have to go overboard and follow Wilson. Many in the reformed community think that if they pretend Wilson doesn’t exist, that he will go away.

    Dalrock has hit Wilson over and over again, but he comes from outside of protestantism, and doesn’t realize there is a larger agenda here


  14. GunnerQ,

    “That’s an odd conclusion. How did he come to think that people are still pairing off yet not getting married? The situation is obviously not common-law marriages replacing licensed marriages.”

    First, I don’t know that it’s significant to you (it’s not to me), but let’s be clear that Bnonn said people are “pairing off” and nothing about common-law marriages.

    I am astounded that you consider it an odd conclusion! Are you living under a rock? Are you not familiar personally with many people who are living together outside of “licensed marriage”? If not, Living with an Unmarried Partner Now Common for Young Adults shows these statistics:
    For Adults ages 18-24
       Percentage living with unmarried partner has risen from 0.1% in 1968 to 9.4% in 2018
       Percentage living with spouse has decreased from 39.2% in 1968 to 7.3% in 2018

    For Adults ages 25-34
       Percentage living with unmarried partner has risen from 0.2% in 1968 to 14.8% in 2018
       Percentage living with spouse has decreased from 81.5% in 1968 to 40.3% in 2018

    Those numbers are in line with my perception of people’s actual behavior, even here in flyover country (the Bible Belt?). I fail to see how Bnonn has an “odd conclusion”, but I do find yours to be odd.


    I don’t remember if you are one of those who has expressed a desire for Doug Wilson to directly interact with Dalrock. If so, I’m going to suggest that this situation is much the same. Bnonn expressed his thoughts on his blog and now you have responded … on your blog. Why not respond directly on his blog, or at least tell him of your responding post and request him to respond to you?


  15. ‘There is a quote in Ben Sira that I personally find hilarious, and that is to stay away from women who sing and play instruments’

    ‘Do not dally with a singing girl, in case you get caught by her wiles.’ (Sirach 9:4)

    You have heard of the ‘siren song’ before, haven’t you which lead sailors to shipwrecks. It’s the similar thought process.

    Besides that was in the context of all the things a woman can do to seduce a man outlined in Chapter 9 like beauty, prostitution or giving women authority…and how they all lead to destruction. Men have this weakness and tendency to make women into gods over the true God.


  16. “Are you not familiar personally with many people who are living together outside of “licensed marriage”?”

    Sugar Daddy and other short-term relationships are not any kind of marriage, especially from a Christian perspective. Furthermore, Bnonn said that marriage is fine because the Church would defend it if marriage was being attacked, which is hilarious but not funny.

    Furthermore, your own math confirms marriage is going downhill much faster than cohabitating is going uphill. The obvious conclusion from that is people are being discouraged from getting married, not that a “household” model of government has been steadily discontinued for centuries by Protestants.

    “I don’t remember if you are one of those who has expressed a desire for Doug Wilson to directly interact with Dalrock.”

    No, I’m not one of them. I don’t believe in dialogue with Christ’s enemies.

    “Bnonn expressed his thoughts on his blog and now you have responded … on your blog. Why not respond directly on his blog, or at least tell him of your responding post and request him to respond to you?”

    One, because my post is too long to be a comment, otherwise I would have put the whole thing on Dalrock’s.

    Two, I don’t want to influence the Churchians. I want to influence the people who might believe them. There’s no turning a Churchian from his error. The truth would be fatal to everything he ever accomplished in life.

    Three, why should I make a point of direct communication with Bnonn? None of my arguments depends upon our personal opinion of each other. If I’ve made an error then anybody can check me on it; doesn’t have to be him.

    Four, enough Churchians prohibit or heavily moderate comments that I dislike the idea of conversation on their terms. That crowd has a reputation for dishonesty about how they handle criticism.

    Five, why try for common ground when there is none?

    And six, pingbacks are still tricky for me.


  17. I often post on Dalrock’s website and I am always amazed by the Blue Pill level of some of the posters.

    Do you folks ever wonder, “why do Biblical Christians always lose?” when it comes to cultural and societal issues and disputes?

    Seriously, do you all ever wonder? :-/ Chivalry has a major part to play, sure. But besides that, do you ever wonder why things never get better and why Christians always lose such battles?

    Maybe… just maybe it is because they capitulate to their enemies. Christians fight fair and our enemies fight dirty because they want to win. The Democrats won every single “close election” even after the Reps won these elections on Election Night 2018. Do you ever wonder… huh, how did that happen?

    Maybe it is because, unlike us, foolish Christian Conservatives, they will do ANYTHING to win, including fraud. They will lie, they will steal, they will defraud. They will say and do anything to win. I know this may be shocking to some, but yeah, they want to win and therefore, they win. They will use their power to crush us, and they will continue to win until we begin to fight for real.

    I am not saying we become our enemies. I am saying we fight to win because ultimately, unless we begin winning again, we will be outlawed as a religion and crushed using govt power.

    You all complain that “lying is wrong” when it comes to fighting against our enemies and yet our enemies pour out lies against us to destroy us.
    (Perfect example: false accusations of “sexual harassment” by women against men in workplace. The Betas here riled against me for immunizing myself from such accusations and living to fight another day… but you all prefer to be destroyed for sake of your own principles and then lose ground to the enemy again. This is the type of mentality in which people like the future king David, the ancestral relative of Jesus’ earthly father, would have been destroyed under. And what for??)

    You all complain about female voters (a Constitutional Amendment would be required to repeal this, which requires 3/4 of States and 2/3 of Congress; translation = almost impossible to repeal) and yet fail to accept this reality and then fail to even try to persuade female voters towards Conservative positions. Accept this reality and work to try to change such voters.

    You complain about unfair laws, like marital rape and yet you are in a jury and like every other cuck out there, believe whatever women’s testimony is.

    You demonize men who want to fight to win and actually destroy our enemies, no matter what. You say things like you would “never hire a cutthroat future lawyer like me” because I have the will and determination to do what it takes to win and defeat my enemies.

    You mock and demonize men who have been unfairly accused (looking at you, @Ray) because maybe these men had past positions and behaviors that were Beta, as they lived in societal ignorance about such matters.

    And WORST OF ALL: you all complain about no-fault divorce and divorce-rapes and yet you all demand men go out and marry into this exact system – unchanged, as is. 🙄 You are all signing into a system that was designed to imprison, enslave, and destroy men. This is not a “secret” anymore…. everyone knows the whole thing is a huge scam, so why continue to sign on the dotted line? -_-

    And then you all wonder why nothing ever changes for the better?!? 😮 Really? Why should the Marriage 2.0 system change at all when millions of Beta Christian men continue to sign up for this blatantly, openly, and clearly unfair system anyway? 🙄

    Why should price of a product go down or quality improve when everyone continues to buy it at that price? Demand is still the same, so why should prices from supplies go down or improve product quality? It is so illogical, I cannot even begin to comprehend it.

    I am using these analogies about the Marriage 2.0 scam, because it will never improve unless demand for Marriage 2.0 collapses. It will only change when men opt out. Why would women opt out of the Marriage 2.0 system when they get 100% of the benefits and hold almost all the cards in such a system?

    Yeah… it is insane and illogical. It defies common sense or the basic “economics of life”. No wonder why we always lose. Just sayin’.


  18. @GunnerQ said: “Bnonn said that marriage is fine because the Church would defend it if marriage was being attacked, which is hilarious but not funny. Furthermore, your own math confirms marriage is going downhill much faster than cohabitation is going uphill. The obvious conclusion from that is people are being discouraged from getting married, not that a “household” model of government has been steadily discontinued for centuries by Protestants.”

    Very true. The government has set-up a welfare and tax model that benefits single mothers. A man who marries a woman and they have a child together, no matter how poor they may be (say both only work PT and earn minimum wage), will get LESS welfare assistance then the single woman would. By co-habitating, the govt keeps her at “single mother” status and she gets a much bigger welfare package (food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, EIC, etc etc) than if she was a married woman, not head of household status in her tax filings. Our Govt PUNISHES poor people who marry.

    The benefits of marriage have been real, clear, and obvious for centuries, until the Socialist left came in and instituted a welfare and tax system that punishes marriage. Let’s not even start with the Family Law Courts, divorce-rapes, and child custody abuses. A and let’s not even go into false allegations of marital rape or false domestic violence to gain leverage in arguments or divorce proceedings.

    Not only that, being a married man/husband and/or a father is no longer a positive sign of social status. It is viewed negatively, as some sort of evil, repressive patriarch oppression a woman. Churches no longer honor dads and husbands, in fact, they honor women who frivolously divorce their husbands on a whim, as “brave women”. There is a stigma associated with husbands and fathers, just watch some TV ads and see what I mean.

    Above is a good example! Dads and husbands are mocked as stupid, fat, beta, incompetent, and useless without a woman around.

    That is why co-habitation is up, marriage is down. The incentives are all wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s