I listened to the David Wilbur interview which was recently discussed in the post "One of our own gets called out". I also went on to listen to The Revolting Man video response.
Our brother The Revolting Man got pretty angry with those guys. That made me think. I wasn't as angry with them as I should have been. I viewed them mainly as wrong or misguided, more than as the infiltraters and deceivers they seem to be. It is right to be angry with evildoers. Thumbs up Zec.
The whole "mutual submission" argument put forth by unbelieving feminists is a scam.
There is mutual submission, to God. The man submits to God by leading, loving, providing for, and protecting his family in the way of the Lord. The woman submits to God by submitting, respecting, and following the man as her leader.
One thing that jumped out at me from the Wilbur talk was that they seemed to keep going back to Philippians 2:4 in their argument for mutual submission (argument against leadership).
"...do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others"
They seem to think leadership means "getting what you want", or "selfishly seeking your own good, at the expense of others". Their solution is a form of check and balance. Two selfish people have to balance their selfishness by having equal authority in a marriage.
The ironic thing is that Philippians chapter two doesn't deny leadership. Instead, it shows us how leaders are to act.
Obviously, Christ is the Leader of the Church. He is our Master, and we must submit to Him. The real issue is this:
What kind of Leader is Christ?
In light of that, how should we lead?
Christ is The Good Leader, and we should follow Him by being good leaders in our little particular spheres.
I remember reading a famous military leader talking about his leadership priorities as:
1. The mission
2. The men
3. Himself
In marriage, the man who leads well will think about:
1. Serving Christ and His Kingdom
2. Seeking the best for his family
3. His own interests
This took me back to the HBO WWII miniseries "Band of Brothers". In that story, we had an example of good leadership in Major "Dick" Winters, and poor leadership in Lieutenant Herbert Sobel.
I recommend you read the Wikipedia articles on both of the real life men. Even the wartime photos of the men are telling. Winters looks like a serious man, someone who "gets shit done", and is liked, respected, and followed by men, and is desirable to women. Women know that this guy will take good care of them.
Sobel looks basically the opposite. He looks arrogant, self entitled, weak, and annoying.
Winters
Sobel
Mr Sobel had a flawed character. He was arrogant and treated the men like crap. He was despised by the men of "Easy Company". He was an officer, but never really became a leader. He never amounted to anything, and met a pitiful end.
Mr Winters put the mission, and the well-being of his men above all else. He suffered with them. He faced danger, and dodged bullets with them. His men respected and loved him.
The Wilbur video also reminded me of the "Male sociosexual hierarchy" as put forth by writer Vox Day. Vox Day breaks men down into several categories.
Alphas - confident, likeable, high status, leaders, who are highly desirable to women. Michael Jordan was the alpha of the Chicago Bulls basketball team back in the day. Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice was an alpha. Alphas take good care of the people who follow them. Alphas are rarely monogamous. It is hard when women throw themselves at you all the time. King David was alpha.
Bravos - These guys are the inner circle of the alpha. They are lower level leaders. Scottie Pippen was the bravo to Michael Jordan. Women like them quite a bit too. Mr. Bingley from Pride and Prejudice was the bravo to Darcy. Caleb son of Jephunneh seems like an awesome bravo. He didn't lead the nation like Joshua, but he did go in fought successfully for the land God gave him. Jonathan was also an awesome bravo to David. Uriah the Hittite was another great bravo.
Deltas - These guys are the average Joe's. They are the backbone of society. They do almost everything that really matters in the world. They are the men of "Easy Company", the truck driver, the math teacher, the carpenter, the farmer, the engineer, etc. Most men are deltas. They are responsible, and competent. Most women marry deltas. They make good husband's and fathers, even if they are a little boring. Most of Jesus's disciples seem like deltas.
Gammas - These are weak, low status, and undesirable men. They are jealous of alphas, and crave the status and women that the alpha possesses. They irritate and annoy other men, and women find them a little creepy. Mr. Collins from Pride and Prejudice is a gamma. He constantly craves approval. These men aren't on the basketball team at all. They are afraid of losing, afraid of getting hurt, and too lazy to put in the hard work needed to become good at basketball. Still, they love to criticize the basketball players. They know they would have done much better.
Many gammas still marry, but tend to have unhappy marriages. Their wives tolerate rather than admire them.
There are also Sigmas, Omegas, and Lambdas, but these are irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Wilbur and the other guy seem like gammas to me. They seem weak, irritating, and undesirable. I'm glad they weren't leading Easy Company on D-Day.
In a polygamous society, alphas would tend to have multiple wives. Most bravos would have one wife, while a few would have more (like Elkanah father of Samuel). Deltas would have one wife.
A lot of gammas wouldn't even get a wife (and society would greatly benefit from their inability to reproduce).
With conscious effort, men can move up the scale somewhat. A gamma will never be an alpha, but with serious effort can become a respectable delta.
I'm naturally a delta (as are most men), but the fact that I am interested in taking a second wife means that I need to up my game. I'll never be an alpha, but I am working towards becoming a solid bravo.
Our brother The Revolting Man got pretty angry with those guys. That made me think. I wasn't as angry with them as I should have been. I viewed them mainly as wrong or misguided, more than as the infiltraters and deceivers they seem to be. It is right to be angry with evildoers. Thumbs up Zec.
The whole "mutual submission" argument put forth by unbelieving feminists is a scam.
There is mutual submission, to God. The man submits to God by leading, loving, providing for, and protecting his family in the way of the Lord. The woman submits to God by submitting, respecting, and following the man as her leader.
One thing that jumped out at me from the Wilbur talk was that they seemed to keep going back to Philippians 2:4 in their argument for mutual submission (argument against leadership).
"...do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others"
They seem to think leadership means "getting what you want", or "selfishly seeking your own good, at the expense of others". Their solution is a form of check and balance. Two selfish people have to balance their selfishness by having equal authority in a marriage.
The ironic thing is that Philippians chapter two doesn't deny leadership. Instead, it shows us how leaders are to act.
Obviously, Christ is the Leader of the Church. He is our Master, and we must submit to Him. The real issue is this:
What kind of Leader is Christ?
In light of that, how should we lead?
Christ is The Good Leader, and we should follow Him by being good leaders in our little particular spheres.
I remember reading a famous military leader talking about his leadership priorities as:
1. The mission
2. The men
3. Himself
In marriage, the man who leads well will think about:
1. Serving Christ and His Kingdom
2. Seeking the best for his family
3. His own interests
This took me back to the HBO WWII miniseries "Band of Brothers". In that story, we had an example of good leadership in Major "Dick" Winters, and poor leadership in Lieutenant Herbert Sobel.
I recommend you read the Wikipedia articles on both of the real life men. Even the wartime photos of the men are telling. Winters looks like a serious man, someone who "gets shit done", and is liked, respected, and followed by men, and is desirable to women. Women know that this guy will take good care of them.
Sobel looks basically the opposite. He looks arrogant, self entitled, weak, and annoying.
Winters
Sobel
Mr Sobel had a flawed character. He was arrogant and treated the men like crap. He was despised by the men of "Easy Company". He was an officer, but never really became a leader. He never amounted to anything, and met a pitiful end.
Mr Winters put the mission, and the well-being of his men above all else. He suffered with them. He faced danger, and dodged bullets with them. His men respected and loved him.
The Wilbur video also reminded me of the "Male sociosexual hierarchy" as put forth by writer Vox Day. Vox Day breaks men down into several categories.
Alphas - confident, likeable, high status, leaders, who are highly desirable to women. Michael Jordan was the alpha of the Chicago Bulls basketball team back in the day. Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice was an alpha. Alphas take good care of the people who follow them. Alphas are rarely monogamous. It is hard when women throw themselves at you all the time. King David was alpha.
Bravos - These guys are the inner circle of the alpha. They are lower level leaders. Scottie Pippen was the bravo to Michael Jordan. Women like them quite a bit too. Mr. Bingley from Pride and Prejudice was the bravo to Darcy. Caleb son of Jephunneh seems like an awesome bravo. He didn't lead the nation like Joshua, but he did go in fought successfully for the land God gave him. Jonathan was also an awesome bravo to David. Uriah the Hittite was another great bravo.
Deltas - These guys are the average Joe's. They are the backbone of society. They do almost everything that really matters in the world. They are the men of "Easy Company", the truck driver, the math teacher, the carpenter, the farmer, the engineer, etc. Most men are deltas. They are responsible, and competent. Most women marry deltas. They make good husband's and fathers, even if they are a little boring. Most of Jesus's disciples seem like deltas.
Gammas - These are weak, low status, and undesirable men. They are jealous of alphas, and crave the status and women that the alpha possesses. They irritate and annoy other men, and women find them a little creepy. Mr. Collins from Pride and Prejudice is a gamma. He constantly craves approval. These men aren't on the basketball team at all. They are afraid of losing, afraid of getting hurt, and too lazy to put in the hard work needed to become good at basketball. Still, they love to criticize the basketball players. They know they would have done much better.
Many gammas still marry, but tend to have unhappy marriages. Their wives tolerate rather than admire them.
There are also Sigmas, Omegas, and Lambdas, but these are irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Wilbur and the other guy seem like gammas to me. They seem weak, irritating, and undesirable. I'm glad they weren't leading Easy Company on D-Day.
In a polygamous society, alphas would tend to have multiple wives. Most bravos would have one wife, while a few would have more (like Elkanah father of Samuel). Deltas would have one wife.
A lot of gammas wouldn't even get a wife (and society would greatly benefit from their inability to reproduce).
With conscious effort, men can move up the scale somewhat. A gamma will never be an alpha, but with serious effort can become a respectable delta.
I'm naturally a delta (as are most men), but the fact that I am interested in taking a second wife means that I need to up my game. I'll never be an alpha, but I am working towards becoming a solid bravo.
Last edited:
