A generation after the baby boomer born men’s manhood maladjustment, which I talked about in the last post, begin the single mother household epidemic. Whereas, there are many single mothers (“double mother and father”) who inculcate into their sons that they ought to be “gentleman” to every woman they come in contact with. Regardless how hoish, scandalous, wicked, and malicious the women are.
The Son of God wasn’t a “gentleman” to every woman he came in contact with. So how is it expected that the Son of a Single Mother must be a “gentleman” to every woman he comes in contact with.
Jesus called a Canaanite woman a DOG!
Matthew 15:21-26 “Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to [dogs].”
Jesus calling the Canaanite woman a DOG is tantamount to a man in our present day calling a woman a “Bitch,” which literally means female dog. If Jesus a sinless man didn’t always show “the proper” respect for every single woman he came in contact with, as evident when he called a Canaanite woman a “Dog,” than how can it be accounted a “sin” for a man, who is a son of single mother, to not show “the proper” respect for a well-known “Bitch,” who has disrespected him.
Single mothers who teach their sons to show unconditional respect for women, even respect to women who are disrespectful to their sons, do it out of the bitterness of them not being able to maintain a substantial relationship with a man, because of their disrespect to men in general. Certain single mothers project their failure of womanhood (unable to obtain or maintain a relationship with a man—head of woman) unto their sons, in turn, their sons fail at expressing their manhood (head of woman) and become docile in their behavior like women—unto women. All because these sons were miseducated about manhood by their single mother.
It’s a ubiquitous thing in western households that grown women (not grown men) are teaching young boys on how to be grown men, which is against nature. I know it may sound unnatural to a maternalistic society, but a boy who needs to learn how to be a man, might actually need to be taught by a man (head of woman). Or at least by a woman who was woman enough to have been in a relationship with a strong man (head of woman).
If these single mothers failed at maintaining a relationship for being a domineering woman, what makes them think that the dynamic of submissive man-domineering woman is going to work for their sons in their interactions with women, if it didn’t work with their interactions with men? It all becomes a dynamic of “Like Single Mother, Like Son.” Their sons end up being alone just like their single mother by being disrespectful to women from first being disrespected by women. Women unconsciously don’t respect submissive men, they commit infidelity against them, then they abandon them for someone who they really like who acts like a man (a leader). Thus, over a space of time, these “gentlemen” who were taught to be this way by their single mothers become bitter toward women. They have no emotional gratifying relationships from that point on. All relationships with women are just for sexual gratification and P.R.
No man in his right mind will deal continuously with a domineering woman. If they do, they will commit infidelity against them, exploit and use them for some material gain, and then afterwards they will abandon them when they find someone who they really like who acts like a woman (an assistant).
Considering all of this, I don’t know why people (especially older women) say when they see a young man acting “ungentleman” like—not being submissive or chivalrous to a woman, that his mother didn’t teach him right. Thank God his mother didn’t teach him “right.” That he want be subject to the just aforementioned circumstance of “Like Single Mother, Like Son.”
A strong mother in the Bible didn’t teach her son to be a “gentleman” and do his best to appease women at all times, she taught her son otherwise. This mother actually taught her son to not appease women, and not give his strength (manhood) unto women. But to stand up and value himself as a man that he want destroy himself (emasculate himself), as many kings (affluent men) have done before him who gave their strength unto women.
Proverbs 31:1-3 “The words of [king Lemuel], the prophecy that [his mother] taught him. What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows? Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.”
Such good teachings as this by this mother above laid the foundation for her son to become a King (a strong leader) and not a “gentleman” (a weak follower). This mother teaching her son that in order for him to be a King, he must refrain from appeasing women was pure genius of her. Augmenting teaching her son on how to be a King, she also taught her son on how to recognize a virtuous woman (a queen). She taught her son that
1) a virtuous woman’s husband can safely trust in her (Prov 31:11); which means she isn’t a Hoe, because you can’t never trust a Hoe.
2) A virtuous woman will do her husband good and not evil all the days of her life (Prov 31:12); which means she isn’t a malicious woman who is extremely cruel and evil to her husband by emasculating him in public and in private.
3) A virtuous woman will work willingly with her hands (Prov 31:13); which means she isn’t lazy and will WORK for her man and WORK on his behalf, that she would deserve all the appreciation (gentleness) that her man will give her.
4) A virtuous woman’s husband is known among the elders in the land (Prov 31:23); which means she submits to her husband that he may be exalted among other men in a man’s world, and that she doesn’t reverence herself over her husband that she may be exalted among other insubordinate women in an evil angel’s world.
5) A virtuous woman opens her mouth with wisdom and kindness (Prov 31:26); which means she isn’t loud and stubborn and subtle of heart, going about trying to get the last word in every argument. She isn’t going about being so subtle that she will do something vile right in front of her husband and when he confronts her about it, she gets so belligerent and slick with her mouth that she actually convinces him that she didn’t do it when he was looking right at her while she was doing it.
Other mothers in the Bible taught their daughters Sound Doctrine! They taught their daughters to be good (gentlewomen) unto their husbands. Which indirectly was teaching their sons that their wives ought to be good (gentlewomen) unto them.
Titus 2:1, 3-5 “But speak thou the things which become [sound doctrine]: The aged women (mothers) likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, [teachers of good things]; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, [good], obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
In the two different examples above, we have different mothers doing the same thing. The first mother taught her son (who became a King) that virtuous women (queens) are to be good and kind (gentlewomen) unto their husbands and in general. The aged mothers taught their daughters that they ought to be good and obedient (gentlewomen) to their husbands. So where in the hell did these present-day mothers come from who teach their sons to be “gentlemen,” and teach their sons to be good and obedient to their wives? They certainly are not spiritual progenies of the [holy] mothers in the bible. [Holy] mothers in the bible didn’t teach their daughters to be evil and deceptive toward their husbands like many mothers do in this day. In teaching their daughters shit like “don’t let your left hand no what your right hand is doing.” In other words, “get what you can out of these ‘dog ass men’ while not letting them know your true intentions.” That is straight up evil. What type of virtue is that to teach your daughter? The virtuous woman will do her husband good and not evil all the days of her life (Prov 31:12). This all shows that many of these present-day mothers (especially the single mothers) have no sound virtues to teach their sons or their daughters. Their teachings to their sons (be “gentlemen”) and to their daughters (be evil and deceptive) are not according to the bible, they are according to current western etiquette. Which is a western manhood maladjustment starting from baby boomer born men and a projection of failure from certain single mothers for not being woman enough to deal with a strong man (head of woman).
This was the Doctrine of the Gathering of Israel