The Beta Factory

How the Protestant church betrayed men, masculinity, and God’s hierarchical order.

Readership: All
Theme: Cultural Demise
Author’s Note: This post is based on an email exchange between Jack, Caterpillar345, Oscar, Red Pill Apostle, and Thedeti on 2023/7/17-18.
Length: 1,200 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes

A Brief History of Gynocentric Churchianity — “The Beta Factory”

Society has shifted leftward for the last 100 years or more in the West.  Since the increasing rise of Feminism about 50 years ago, the church has modified its views on marriage and church leadership in an attempt to make its doctrine more palatable to the masses.  These false teachings in the church, including Chivalry (which extends back several hundred years), Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, and Feminism, have undermined male authority both in the church and in the home. The church has thus been transformed into a Beta Factory which continues to condition church-going men into Betas.

There have been two distinct developments in the Protestant church’s teachings to this end — Complementarianism and Egalitarianism.

Complementarianism

Back during the women’s empowerment movement of the 1970s and 1980s, the church became ashamed of the Bible’s clear patriarchal teaching and considered it necessary to compromise in order to make the church relevant to the wider social trends towards Feminism.  So the first step down the slippery slope was in teaching the idea that men and women “complement” each other.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with that so far as it is an observation of the way God made male and female such that marriage reflects God’s character (Genesis 1:27).  However, this new approach stressed a role structure which omitted wifely submission and avoided this topic entirely in order to retain traction in an increasingly gynocentric culture and to avoid scrutiny and/or offending Feminist sympathizers.  Questions naturally arose about the scriptural validity of this new teaching, and so many caveats, bells, and whistles had to be added to this approach to form a complete doctrinal model.  This model eventually developed into what is now called Complementarianism.

Essentially, Complementarianism makes a token effort to reconcile Ephesians 5:22-33 and I Peter 3:1-7 with today’s attitudes about sex roles, so that modern Christians can accept and incorporate “wifely submission” into marriage.  Essentially, Complementarianism allows nominally Christian wives to say they’re “submitting” to their husbands while retaining the option of doing so on their own terms.  Of course, conditional and/or contextual submission is actually not submission at all, but Complementarianism allows modern husbands and wives to assert they are being faithful to scriptural requirements, while not actually being faithful to scriptural requirements.  It’s essentially legalism and not ‘heart’.

Egalitarianism

Over time and with further doctrinal restructuring, the sympathetic response towards women’s liberation that was responsible for Complementarianism gradually gave birth to Egalitarianism.

The next step was in teaching that men and women really are “equal” per Galatians 3:26-28.  In this view, men and women are said to be “equal” in every way (a denial of 1 Corinthians 11:3,7-9 and 1 Peter 3:7) but they are required to occupy different roles as husband and wife.  However, these intersexual roles are deemphasized in favor of the idea that man and wife are equal under God, with each being directly accountable to God.

This sleight of hand was done by introducing a misinterpretation of Galatians 3:26-28, thereby changing the application of this verse to include the context of earthly authority status and not merely redemptive status (Galatians 3:29).

One way they made “equal” jive with the previous step of Complementarianism such to make this Blue Pill easier to swallow, was to contrive a numerical model — men are to have 50.1% of authority and women 49.9% of authority.  It sounds good and looks just about equal, but it’s a smokescreen because that 0.1% means men have complete control — or so they said.

The Christian Manosphere’s Take on Complementarianism and Egalitarianism

Complementarianism and Egalitarianism are regarded by the Christian Manosphere for what they are in practice.

In the Complementarian and Egalitarian view, wifely “submission” is not “submission” in the sense the apostles intended and made clear in several passages in the scriptures, but rather…

• Wifely “submission” is reinvented in the theoretical abstract as her “submission to God (alone)”.
• Wives are told that “submission” in practice is demonstrated in the wife’s willingness to presume a different but “equal” role of a wife in her marriage.
• From the wife’s perspective, this role of wifely “submission” is whatever is purported to be acceptable within the herd sensibilities of the local church community, and this is invariably gynocentric in nature.
• In reality, this brand of “submission” is defined by herself and is not subject to the authority of any man — not to a woman’s father nor the man who occupies the “role” of “husband”. Some credence is attributed to pastors, but pastors will never hold women accountable.
• In reality, whatever the wife thinks or decides is casually supported by the church, even decisions that are anti-biblical and/or horrendously catastrophic to her marriage and family.

All this basically boils down to a vanity of the mind in which female solipsism is glorified as the will of God.

Changes in the Distribution of Authority

In reality, when male authority is craftily excised from God’s ordained structure through Complementarianism / Egalitarianism, then…

• Women have all the authority with none of the responsibility for their actions and decisions.
• Men have all the responsibility with insufficient authority to execute their responsibilities.

In reality, Men do not categorically have 50.1% authority.  Under a normal distribution (pre-Feminism), the male-female power balance looks like this.

If we were to plot the real world distribution of male authority under the present system, it would look something like this.

Note that this distribution of authority closely resembles the male attractiveness distribution shown in the graph on the right below.

This is no coincidence. Without male authority being imposed by the church community, the whole substance of male authority is reduced to their SMV markers. Thus, women see church-going males through the same SMV speculum that they place on secular men, except that church-going men can’t compete because they have been hobbled by Complementarianism, emasculated by Egalitarianism, and limited in their sexual conduct by the burdens of conscience.

The only way out of this mess is to reinstate masculine authority in the defacto sense as imposed by the church community.

Conclusions

All in all, Complementarianism is most accurately thought of as weak men trying to appease women in their congregations and denominations and being willing to bend the scriptures in doing so.  (Dalrock has done the vast majority of the work in uncovering this.)

Egalitarianism is simply understood as an attempt to dismiss Biblical teachings on wifely submission (e.g. Ephesians 5:22-33; I Peter 3:1-7) as being outdated and culturally irrelevant in today’s modern gynocentric (and sex-drenched) culture.

In practice, Complementarianism and Egalitarianism are essentially the same, except for what goes on in people’s heads.  Men get an excuse to be weak, women get a free pass, and everyone can still think of themselves as good Christians.

Related

• Dalrock: They’re too traditional to submit to their husbands. (2019/5/24)
• Dalrock: Secular feminists are more honest than conservative Christians. (2019/6/4)
• Dalrock: Late stage complementarianism. (2019/6/7)