Tag Archives: dominic bnonn tennant

Transcript of Dalrock Discussion From The “It’s Good to Be a Man” Episode of The Aaron Renn Show

Back on November 17th of 2021, Aaron Renn interviewed Michael Foster and Bnonn Tennant on his show. They discussed their opinions of and interactions with Dalrock and his material starting at 3:22 and 20:39. Here’s just the transcript of what was said. I won’t make commentary on it, but I think it’s helpful to have the transcript by itself as a reference for future posts.

Continue reading

Debunking the Myth that “Marital Sex Is Not A Solution For Lust”

Bnonn & Foster sent out their latest newsletter yesterday titled, “Notes on manhood 2021 week #25″. In it they revealed that they’re still just as stunted in their views of biblical sexuality as your standard Christian feminist:

Let us leave behind magic numbers, and move onto wise principles for knowing whether a couple is ready for marriage. Here are five: (…) 5. Focus on training your sons and daughters to harness their sexual energy towards productive ends. So much of the young marriage stuff is motivated by parents who think their children can’t overcome lust and stay chaste into their early 20s. But marrying young is not a solution for this. Sex does not cure lust; it merely channels sexual energy licitly. A man who has not learned to control his eyes before marriage, for instance, is not going to do any better after marriage, and is frankly not marriage material.

This kind of attitude towards marital sex can be found everywhere. At Blazing Grace, Mike Genung wrote a scathing piece on this subject, but it can be summed up with this paragraph:

Continue reading

The Brazen Hypocrisy of Bnonn & Foster

I got Bnonn and Foster’s newsletter this past Saturday. Subject is “Our notes from 2021 week #19”. In it, they say the following:

The West has descended into sexual chaos. But the Lord calms every storm in his own time.

Here are six things pastors should do to help address the madness and restore sanity in the long term:

1. Teach and exhort women to pursue feminine beauty and household management skills;

2. Teach and exhort men to pursue manly excellence in health, wisdom, finances, and leadership;

3. Address the sins of men and women equally;

4. Exhort both men and women to not unduly delay, but cautiously pursue marriage;

5. Encourage married couples to raise up lots of kids in the nurture of the Lord;

6. Teach the married couples the basics of discipline and family religion.

The third point stands out, as this was one of the things Bnonn and Foster explicitly refused to do at the very beginning of their ministry:

(It’s not rocket surgery. Weak men and brassy women are both screwing patriarchy up. Indeed, it’s so obvious as to be uninteresting. We’re not here to endlessly reiterate the problem. We want to fix it.

Who will do that?

Who should we appeal to?

Who should we reprove and rebuke and exhort and train in righteousness?

If we have to choose, should it be the men of God, or the women of God?

We don’t believe there’s even the slightest question about this decision. The answer is always the men. Caldo suggests that for “any leader who wishes to be taken seriously,” “no less than half of his engendered instructions should be directed at women to be quiet and have some respect.” But this flies in the face of the basic dynamic of power. A 50/50 split makes no sense because there’s a fundamental 80/20 here. Pareto’s Principle alone would tell us that if we’re trying to fix a structural problem within a hierarchy, we should start with the people who have the actual power to fix it (not the perceived power). And since God built patriarchy into creation, that means the men. Men are the ones who have the power.

The problem we face is not caused by brassy women taking power. By definition, they don’t have the power to do that, or they wouldn’t need to take it! It’s caused by soft men raising up brassy women, who then demand power, which the soft men trip over themselves to give.

Thus, to solve the problem, we must speak to the men. We can either treat the symptoms, or we can treat the disease; we haven’t the energy to do both. The symptoms are brassy women who demand power. The disease is fathers—pastors, leaders, husbands—who raise them up and capitulate to them.


Bnonn and Foster had decided to enter the fray to fight for biblical masculinity. They were readers of Dalrock, and they denounced feminism and complementarianism. But, there was a problem, because one way Dalrock distinguished himself was by his willingness to read and expose the poisonous teachings found in books and articles written by Nice Christian Ladies. He also proved that Christian teachers would find any excuse under the sun to get away from having to confront the sinful behavior of women. They were an obvious source of trouble that needed to be countered. It became clear to anyone familiar with his work that exposing and criticizing evil men and women within the church equally was a necessary component of any Christian red-pill ministry.

This is where the problem comes in, because Bnonn & Foster just weren’t up to the task. One would assume they had succumbed to cowardice like most complementarian phonies already had. If you ask them, however, that’s not the reason why. It’s because:

  1. It wouldn’t make mathematical sense.
  2. They didn’t have the energy.

I don’t think any regular reader of Dalrock believed #2. Which is ironic since the name of this article on their Patreon page is titled: “The Blame Game (or Step up or Shut Up)“. While Bnonn & Foster were busy trying to talk smack, they came up with the lamest excuse ever. They just didn’t have the energy. (Maybe they just needed to step up or shut up then!)

As far as #1 goes, as you can see, they were adamant on this point. Cane Caldo’s advice didn’t make sense, supposedly, because it flew in the face of the basic dynamic of power. An 80/20 split would make way more sense. And yet here they are over two years later telling pastors to:

3. Address the sins of men and women equally;

But guys, don’t you understand? Pastors just don’t have the energy! And besides, it doesn’t make mathematical sense anyway.’

I assume Bnonn & Foster’s rebuttal would be to quit making excuses. ‘Step up or shut up, man!’ And yet, that proves that their red-pill Christian skeptics were right all along. Bnonn & Foster were making lame excuses to get out of having to confront women on their issues.

Nowadays it seems they’ve changed their mind on that. Emphasis on “seems”. Remember, they haven’t removed their errant newsletters from the Internet. Both those links still work. There aren’t any addendums cautioning the readers against believing the phony excuses they’ve offered in the past. No apologies to the red-pill Christians they sneered down upon. This would be easy to do.

But who am I kidding. They probably just don’t have the energy.

Cozying Up To Canon Press Confirmed.

Yesterday Bnonn & Foster sent out their weekly broadcast email, this one titled “Our notes from 2020 week #49.” In it, they confirm that the book they are working on is going to be published by Doug Wilson’s publishing company, Canon Press.

Our book is due out in Spring ’21 from Canon Press. We thank you for your prayers and encouragement, and we’ll continue to keep you up to date.

Back in September I laid out the evidence for Bnonn & Foster’s desire to collaborate in ministry with Doug Wilson. Foster said on Twitter that he got a contract to publish a book, but he did not say if it was with Canon Press. Now they’ve confirmed for us that it is.

I doubt this is the only work they’re planning on doing with Canon Press. Sadly, it appears as though their influence is only continuing to grow.

Maybe they’ll partner up with the Kendrick brothers to make another husband/father-bashing flick. They’re also fond of pretending to care about masculine dignity for husbands and fathers. Who knows?

Running all the big decisions by the missus first.

Last month Foster posted the following Tweet:

Bnonn liked this Tweet so much that he thought it worthy to incorporate into the notes for one of their email updates. Sharkly forwarded it to me, and as you can see, they changed the wording to reflect that they both govern their marriages in the same way.

Btw, every major to medium decision we make, we run past our wives. Is this because we need their approval to make a decision? Not at all. It’s because we desire their wisdom and feminine insight. They are our helpmates on our mission, and we find them to be very helpful. Thank God for godly wives!

It’s one thing to run some household-related decisions past your wife. It’s not necessarily for her approval, but she takes care of the house and kids, so she might have some insight or helpful suggestions to give. You might move ahead with that decision in spite of her protests, which is all well and good. However, with Foster and Bnonn, they go way beyond that. It’s not just some of the big decisions limited to the home, but every major one they make! And not just the big ones, but the medium ones too! All of them!

Both of these men know how bad this might sound to the skeptics in their audience. There’s a reason they assured their readers that they’re not doing this for their wives’ approval. Even if it were true, they only made themselves look bad in another way. These men aspire to be mentors of biblical masculinity to other Christian men. How on earth do they expect to accomplish that while also proudly proclaiming that they need their wives help to make every decision that doesn’t count as little?

Why I’m Still Suspicious of the IGTBAM Project.

I occasionally scan over Michael Foster and Bnonn Tennant’s Twitter feeds. They both say a lot of good things about marriage that a patriarch like myself can agree with. Did I have these guys wrong or something? Are they really the defenders of biblical masculinity they claim to be? Was I wrong to be suspicious of them early on?

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: After all the work Dalrock did exposing the war Doug Wilson wages against biblical masculinity (see here for all of Dalrock’s posts related to him), no patriarch worth a dime would call him a bright light. Maybe a quick refresher is in order to explain why: Continue reading

Bnonn Doubles Down

Question: Why does a man who promotes biblical masculinity poison people’s minds against other men who have been doing that very thing for years?

Answer: When he’s trying to promote his brand.

Looks like Bnonn decided that he hasn’t done enough to distinguish his brand of biblical masculinity, and it was time to denounce Christians who describe themselves as red-pillers yet again.

The red pill is something like a modern mystery cult; pairing it with Christianity just produces a Christian knockoff of that cult.

I could argue that this statement is false, but if you read Bnonn’s article, he never quotes anyone (excepting C.S. Lewis, which isn’t relevant). Bnonn expects his readers to take him at his word that he knows red pill Christians enough to make such a declaration, and providing proof in the form of direct quotes isn’t necessary. (It’s not a terrible bet either; he managed to hoodwink Hawk at Triablogue despite my placing that exact proof of Bnonn’s dishonesty right under his nose.).

If this is Bnonn simply explaining how he and Foster view red-pill Christians, then that’s his prerogative. He isn’t obligated to provide proof just for offering his opinion, but the fact remains that he is doubling down like a lying SJW. Back when his ministry was first starting out, Bnonn Tweeted a thread beginning with this:

If you read the thread and then compare it with his recent article, you can see that he’s merely re-publishing his Twitter-thread in article form on his website, albeit with a few minor edits. For example (differences bolded by me):

There are folks out there calling themselves red pill Christians. We believe this is no better than the many people who consider themselves feminist Christians, or social justice Christians, or gay-affirming Christians, or whatever other idol of wokeness they have discovered in the world and then attached Christianity to.

The message in the article remains the same as it did on Twitter, and it’s just as bad as it was back in December.

Here’s this same Tweet in the article (again, differences bolded by me):

Our conviction is that, while the red pill shares certain commonalities with biblical Christianity, and often sees the nature of things more clearly than mainstream evangelicalism, it is actually a separate religion in its own right. Even the very name describes a conversion experience by which the acolyte is inducted into an elect group, gains hidden wisdom and secret doctrines, and becomes part of a justified minority. (So) The red pill is something like a modern mystery cult; pairing it with Christianity just produces a Christian knockoff of that cult. Implicit in its doctrines are:

This garbage is just as inane as it ever was. This is a fully Internet-savvy man describing men reading public discussions on the Internet as acolytes who are inducted into a group filled with hidden wisdom and secret doctrines. What in God’s name is he blathering about?

I called Bnonn out for this nonsense back when it first came out. Michael Foster tried to defend him, and failed miserably (see here). Now, nine months later, he’s repeating it, but with some more careful edits:

This is especially obvious if you read red pill Christian discussion threads on popular blogs like Dalrock; the eagerness with which they violate the principles of Ephesians 5 is startling to behold. There is as much contempt for women there as for men on feminist forums, and as little fear of God before their eyes.

In Bnonn’s Tweet, he said, “discussions on blogs like Dalrock;” which includes Dalrock himself. As he re-purposed this material, he made sure to specify that he’s talking about “discussion threads” on Dalrock’s blog, which would mean Dalrock isn’t necessarily included in his denunciation of this… Mystery cult, or whatever Bnonn thinks it is.

There are still a few problems with this:

i) It’s drama-queen drivel. Does any human alive really think Bnonn was “startled” when he beheld the discussions at Dalrock’s blog?

ii) Feminists call for the castration of men and the right to murder their own babies. You can’t find a single comment on Dalrock’s blog that even comes close to that. Most of Dalrock’s readers are also professing believers. Any regular reader knows that. There is no way Bnonn thinks that the fear of God exhibited by Dalrock’s discussion threads is mimicked by the God-hating insanity spewed on feminist forums. But, if Bnonn can count on his audience taking him at his word that he has done his homework and is representing red pill Christians accurately, then they’ll never realize that the man is poisoning the well.

iii) Bnonn Tweeted this out shortly after being called out for his original Tweet:

Notice that Bnonn justified what he originally Tweeted by writing, “But Dalrock curates those comments; he is responsible for the tenor of his own blog.” From Bnonn’s perspective, Dalrock bears the blame of the sin committed within his blog’s discussion threads, whether Dalrock himself personally wrote something sinful or not. Seeing as how he doubled down on lying about Dalrock’s readers, there is no reason at all to assume he’s letting Dalrock off the hook this time around. He remains an opponent, not an ally, in Bnonn’s eyes. That doesn’t surprise me, of course. I can see Bnonn’s game for what it is, but your typical Christian male is far more likely to latch onto Bnonn’s more qualified statement and proclaim that he wasn’t such a bad guy after all, and there was never anything to worry about.

If that’s what you think, you’re probably a complementarian.

Censored by Triablogue?

I’m posting the comment exchange I had with Hawk at Triablogue. I’m using an image rather than pasting our individual comments just to make it simple. Here’s a link to the archived version here:

I did reply to Hawk’s 8/02/2019 2:09 AM response. My reply was visible, but removed later. I had not archived this article at that point, which is why it’s not in the screenshot. Fortunately, I had checked the box that said to email me with new replies to my original comment. That included my own replies, which worked out great because you can not only see Hawk’s final comment, but proof of what my follow-up comment was:

I did submit one more comment, but I got the message that it would visible after approval. Thankfully, I had copied and pasted that down and emailed it to myself just to be safe:

My thoughts:

i.) I assume it was Hawk who has restricted my commenting abilities. My comments usually appear instantly, and only just now they’re awaiting approval.

ii.) This is why my first article on this website dealt with the It’s Good To Be A Man project. Their influence is already reaching people, including other popular bloggers.

iii.) Hawk said there’s often two sides to a story. He’s right. I linked him to mine. He then reports that, “Apparently Michael Foster also spoke with you over the phone.”

Yeah, that’s right. But there’s nothing “apparent” about it. I directly stated that at the beginning of the article I posted for him to read. Foster confirmed that it happened- why wouldn’t he?

If Hawk only learned about that when he communicated with Foster, then that tells me he didn’t read what I wrote.

iv.) Hawk’s final sentence to me was. “It sounds like no consensus was reached despite fair attempts to do so. ”

I’ll repeat what I said to him in my removed comment: What does that mean? What consensus? What were we trying to reach an agreement on?

v.) I assume Hawk is fond of Bnonn and Foster’s work. It’s not surprising. Many people are fond of Douglas Wilson’s work too, despite how terrible it can be at times. However, Triablogue tends to be run by the most intelligent Christian bloggers around. For any of them to bury his head in the sand is beneath what I expect from their writers.

vi.) Hawk appears to be a new later addition to the Triabloggers. I assume he has some freedom to moderate comments. Maybe he’s a new guy, and he’s not accustomed to knowing when and when not to censor commenters. I’ve had intense sparring with Jason Engwer, for example, but he didn’t restrict my commenting abilities. As a 10+ year reader of Triablogue, I’ve seen plenty of obnoxious, rude, aggressive, harsh commenters that were permitted to comment at length on many occasions. There’s no way my comments to Hawk even came close to violating their standards of permissible dialogue.

vii.) Hawk has accepted what he learned from Bnonn and Foster despite proof of their dishonesty being placed in front of him. That’s disappointing, but not surprising. Feminism and complimentarianism wouldn’t be big problems in the church if Christian men were in the habit of scrutinizing teachers of biblical sexuality.

I’ve done what I can, and I will reply once more with a link to this article, just in case it persuades Hawk to give this subject further consideration. Hawk is more than welcome to comment on here if he likes. His comments will not be moderated.

Why I’m Suspicious of the “It’s Good To Be A Man” Project

Michael Foster and Dominic “Bnonn” Tennant run the men’s ministry project called It’s Good To Be a Man. That ministry was suspected by myself and other readers of Dalrock when it first came out, and I’m going to explain why.

I keep an eye on Foster’s Twitter account and noticed that he occasionally offers to speak to men on the phone when he has some free time. He has also tweeted that he is willing to appear on big or small podcasts to discuss men’s issues. I think it was this specific Tweet that caught my eye.

I was interested in exploring the possibility of seeing what would happen were he and I to debate each other on the criticism he and his ministry had leveled against Dalrock. I messaged Foster and directly told him I was interested in doing a livestream, but unlike certain individuals at Warhorn Media, I was up front with the fact that it would be more like a debate.

The livestream did not take place, but we did eventually speak on the phone that same night. It was very impromptu and not at all planned out beforehand. Foster said he was interested in learning what it is about all these Dalrock guys. Like, what’s with all the paranoia? We covered a great deal in our conversation, but I think answering this one question in depth will help explain the negative reaction Foster characterized as paranoia. I told him that the reason for it was because his ministry came out of the gate in its early stages taking shots at men like Dalrock. Foster suggested that if we searched his website, we might find four references to Dalrock, and that’s it. They may have taken a couple glancing shots at him, but in reality, there was nothing to be concerned about.

I decided to check that out for myself. I used the search function on the It’s Good To Be a Man website, and used a specific site search using Google. I got the same two results: Attending church is entering the heavenly court, and The bitter taste of the red pill. In the first article, only Dalrock’s name is mentioned because they were citing a comment left on Dalrock’s blog. No criticism at all was directed his way. We’ll get to the second article later on.

The third area I saw him mentioned was not on the website, but on Twitter. Bnonn tweeted out a link to one of their newsletters, a link that doesn’t take you to the It’s Good To Be a Man website. You can find it here: Even in there, they don’t criticize Dalrock. They actually praise his law of feminism. The object of their severe criticism is red pill Christians, but not Dalrock himself.

That makes three separate mentions so far. Another was on Twitter.

Not much to comment on here. At worst Foster stands guilty of passive-aggression. Not a great move for men attempting to champion masculinity, but that’s as far as it went.

So far, that makes 4. As anyone can see, sometimes they praise Dalrock, sometimes they mention him in passing, and sometimes they make an unfriendly remark. Is that all then? Was I wrong to think there was a clear and identifiable attempt on their part to demonize Dalrock?

No, I was not. Let’s begin with a Tweet from one of Bnonn’s Tweet-threads:

As anyone who frequents Dalrock’s blog knows, this statement is obviously false. Feminists casually wish for the death and castration of men. Bnonn could never produce proof of similar things being said about women by Dalrock. Did he find a comment on Dalrock’s blog by some random user that set him off? If he did, he never said so. Then again, telling people you have no evidence either way doesn’t help when you’re trying to demonize someone.

Foster didn’t accept that characterization of Bnonn’s Tweet though. In fact, as he witnessed the reaction of Dalrock’s readers to Bnonn’s words, he said:

I replied (for the record, I have multiple Twitter accounts):

Although I was referring to remarks Bnonn had made about Christian men’s concerns about sex in marriage, Foster didn’t ask about that. Instead, he asked me what specific lie Bnonn told about Dalrock.

I answered by quoting Bnonn’s words from his Tweet-thread. Foster replied:

I’m sure a strict legal reading in a court room would appreciate Foster’s lawyer-esque justification of Bnonn’s Tweet. True, the words say “discussions on blogs like Dalrock.” Did Bnonn make the highly specific statement that Dalrock himself was a participant in the discussions that happened on the blog, namely, the comments section? No, he didn’t.

So, does Foster’s defense hold water? No, as Bnonn demonstrated the very next day:

Unsurprisingly, Bnonn didn’t reply to that comment. As you can see, Bnonn said his criticism was “aimed more directly at the commenters there.” That means it was at least partly directed towards Dalrock, which means he wasn’t only talking about the participants in the comment section, but Dalrock himself.

Now, how did I know that? If Foster’s defense held water, then how did I know Bnonn was targeting Dalrock in his Tweets prior to Bnonn admitting that he was? Am I psychic? Was I just so smart that I could tell what was really going on despite the fact that Bnonn didn’t spell it out for us in a strictly legal fashion a-la Foster? Or could it be that it was just so obvious that any non-partisan could see it?

And for those who remain un-convinced, Bnonn put the whole question to bed a little over a month later when he wrote the following in The bitter taste of the red pill:

We are not interested in bitching, raging, or defeatist moping. Patriarchs do not wallow in whatever red pill boilerplate they picked up from Dalrock or Rollo or their clones.

You’ll notice that this article was published on February 3rd, 2019. Foster had defended Bnonn’s Twitter thread on January 1st, and yet only a little over a month later, Bnonn publishes a full-blown article on his website slamming “Mr. Man-O-Sphere” directly.

This came as a surprise to absolutely nobody, of course, and this time Foster can’t use some silly legal argument to claim Bnonn wasn’t talking about Dalrock specifically. He was. I don’t think Foster would even try to defend this statement. Granted, I didn’t have this at the ready, so I can’t fault him for not responding to it when we spoke on the phone. However, his defense of Foster’s tweet-thread in December can’t be so easily overlooked. As he himself told me:

What this Tweet proves is that Foster himself claims to have read the first and second-draft of Bnonn’s Tweet-thread, “…before it ever went public.” Foster said he knew what it meant, he was telling me what it meant, and both he and Bnonn discussed it as well, either before or after publication. This means Foster doesn’t have an ‘out’, so to speak, in terms of being able to claim ignorance of what Bnonn wrote. How is it that he didn’t recognize Bnonn’s demonization of Dalrock for what it was? Either Foster lied to me, or he can’t see the Foster for the trees.

………..It’s funny, okay?

The point is, either Foster is a blissfully ignorant good guy who truly did not realize what Bnonn was doing the whole time, or he lied to cover for Bnonn as he attempted to poison the well. They both look bad either way.

In summary, both of these men have talked about Dalrock multiple times and on different platforms. They did not simply make a couple of edgy remarks as Foster claimed. Bnonn lied about Dalrock and his readers, Foster took a swipe at him, and when people reacted negatively, Bnonn doubled-down while Foster ran interference. Foster may dismiss it all as paranoia if he wishes, but hopefully I’ve provided enough proof for anyone familiar with Dalrock and the Christian manosphere as to why it is that I’m suspicious of the It’s Good To Be A Man project. They may say a lot of true and good things as do most Christian men, but honest men do not behave this way. You won’t see me taking swipes at the greatest Christian blogger on biblical masculinity, and then acting like I’m a good little boy who didn’t do nothing. Dalrock is my brother-in-Christ, and an incredible ally in the fight for biblical masculinity. His writings have exposed the rotten underbelly of feminism throughout even the most conservative Christian writings on marriage and sexuality. Of all the people Bnonn and Foster could have gone after in the first four months of their ministry, they went after him. What does that tell you?

P.S. I wrote this article entirely of my own accord. Dalrock had zero input as I wrote this. I wrote it out of concern for my brothers in Christ who are coming to the slow realization that most purveyors of biblical masculinity are charlatans. Christian men need to know how to identify red-flags on the up-and-coming teachers of masculinity before they gain wide-spread popularity. I won’t tell you to stay away from their ministry since we all know how that works. Read what Bnonn and Foster have to say if you will, but be wise as serpents. It’s better to be suspicious first and found to be paranoid later.