I have been very busy and haven’t done a new post for several days now. I have a few post ideas I’ll write up and publish as soon as I have the time. In the meantime I thought I would share some linkage.
David Martin wrote an interesting piece on the Spearhead a while back titled Violence and “Real Men”.
Also on the Spearhead, W.F. Price pulled out some of the best comments describing the problem with Social Conservative Bill Bennett’s Man Up piece. See also Bill’s post on Mexico City considering offering a two year renewable marriage.
Badger probes the question of marital happiness with two different posts, An Elder’s Wisdom on Mediocrity and Marriage, and “How Do You Like Being Married?”.
Captain Capitalism has an illustrated treatise on the war of the sexes titled You Started It, But We’ll Finish It.
As always, feel free to suggest any others in the comments which you think I and/or my readers would enjoy.
Hey, thanks for the link. I’ve gotten a surprising set of responses when asking folks about their marriage.
These are links from one of our Canadian newspapers, but still relevant:
Divorce: the greatest feminist teacher
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/divorce-the-great-feminist-teacher/article108763/page1/
Why Feminists have Better Sex
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/love/dating/why-feminists-have-better-sex/article2185391/page2/
[D: I haven’t read the second one yet, but that first one is very good although painful. She is so close to noticing that she has lived her life like a bull in a china shop. But then she turns away at the last minute and blames some mysterious other for leading her astray.]
No, they aren’t relevant.
An old one from Ulysses that I just became aware of this week:
http://hiddenleaves.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/i-live-as-a-hermit-in-my-man-cave-and-have-sex-with-this-bagel/
So Terri you agree with Athol and Ulysses that MRAs and MGTOW are just pissed that they can’t get laid because they say that in the comments. I’m sure Jesus would be proud of you although I can’t find where in the Bible it says men are pack mules for women or where the Bible says it’s fine for women to divorce men and take away their children.
Where did Jesus say that a man’s worth wad based on how much of a slave he is to women?
Where did Jesus say that a man’s worth wad based on how much of a slave he is to women?
He didn’t say that a man’s worth is based on “how much of a slave he is to women”. However, He did say that man and woman should cleave into one, that a man is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, and He also said that men and women should procreate and be fruitful. And of course when He created the woman so Adam won’t be lonely 😦
However, none of the above means that the man is slave to a woman, or that a man’s worth is dependent on the woman. After all, He did say that the other only choice to marriage is to remain celibate.
PS: Just to be fair and to show that women also have responsibilities, He also told women to submit to their husbands.
While what Ulysses wrote there certainly applies to more than a few people in the manosphere, it paints with far too broad a brush. One of the other main contingents of the manosphere is men who are divorced — not guys who exactly had trouble getting laid or finding a mate.
When we overgeneralize, as he did in that post, we are prone to make errors, sometimes large ones.
I didn’t realize my appreciation of a well written post on the blessings of marriage and family made me a bad Christian. I just thought it was a good perspective for men not interested in GTOW.
What has any of this to do with male slavery??? Enlighten me please.
Further, anyone who has read even a fraction of what I’ve written on marriage knows how I feel about wifely submission and the heat I’ve taken for it.
You sir, need to lighten up, LOL. (Not you Brendan)
And one more thing: No I don’t agree that”MRAs and MGTOW are just pissed that they can’t get laid.” I linked to the post. The post. Why does that mean I agree with what Athol Kay or anyone else said in the comments???
The single life is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle for a man who chooses it. I am well acquainted with what the Bible says on the subject. That’s not even what the post was about. It was about the divide between men who don’t choose it and those who insist that it’s the only conclusion a thinking man can come to.
I really am not following your logic, Mr. “Jesus would be proud.”
terri, that posting by ulysses looks like a slightly more aware version of Bill Bennett’s “Man UP!” diatribe that is making the rounds on trad-con blogs. It’s a bit late in the day to suggest that misandry can be ended if men just assert their masculinity. There are men with Domestic Violence convictions on their records from “manning up”, for example, and a DV conviction always makes a restraining order divorce easier to obtain. So Ulysses is basically some WW I general saying to young men, “Come on, lads, fix bayonets and over the top! The enemy machinegunners can’t get all of you in their sights…”. I’m thinking that Ulysses has no sons, just for a start, and doesn’t have much contact with men under the age of 45 or 50. Like Bennett, he’s a kind of Rip van Winkle who somehow may have slept through the last 40-odd or so years, and awakes to suddenly find that the world has changed.
And you are not being completely honest when you dismiss the comment by Athol Kay and the author himself essentially spouting the standard feminist shaming line about “men who can’t get laid”. If it was just Athol, that would be one thing, but when the author himself joins in, it becomes a bit more significant. Truth to tell, those comments are pretty insulting. I doubt either man would have the guts to say it to the face of, say, a man being ground up by the divorce machine. Because the possibility of a punch in the nose would be non zero; a man who believes he has nothing left to lose might not be the best to taunt. But they have no qualms dealing out stuff like that via the blog world, from a position of safety. It’s rather a childish, and thus feminist, insult to make. Feminists for years have deployed the “you can’t hit me, I’m a girl” argument right after some vile insult, and with sound reason.
One of the things girls learn early is that they can be quite cruel to the boys, even striking them, and they won’t pay a penalty – they can hit, but they won’t get hit back. This leads to some pretty unpleasant personality traits in many women, young and not so young. It’s rather despicable, however, to see men doing the same thing, and yet that is what Athol and Ulysses do in that comment. They are knowingly kicking men who are down, and taunting them, via feminist shaming tactics.
I get the impression that Ulysses is a bit of a traditionalist. Funny how often one finds traditionalists arguing just like feminists – same shaming language, same flawed premises, same fallacies.
That’s an interesting take, AR. No matter, it’s not what I took away from it. I read a man defending his choice (that is often mocked and maligned in the manosphere) to embrace the traditional life of a husband and father. I think he’s a bit younger than Bill Bennett. I think he’s a bit younger than me, in fact. Meaning he’s probably under 40.
And I continue to assert that I was not endorsing the comments, but rather the post.
Terri, one of the comments was by THE AUTHOR OF THE POST. This speaks to his motivation, and it shows it’s nothing more than regular feminist shaming language. If these were just comments from random people then they would be irrelevant. But they aren’t. It’s from the author of the post.
No one is mocking the choice for a traditional marriage. What is happening is that modern traditionalism is being exposed for what it is, a version of feminism cloaked with the trappings of conservatism and religion.
That’s an interesting take, AR. No matter, it’s not what I took away from it.
Your perception is surely colored by your different situation. No one is simultaneously blaming you for all the ills of society, demanding that you “woman up” to fix them, berating you because they aren’t fixed, all while deliberately tilting the legal structure in such a way as to criminalize femininity and make actually taking action more difficult. If that were occurring, you might see such articles in a different light.
I read a man defending his choice (that is often mocked and maligned in the manosphere) to embrace the traditional life of a husband and father.
If the article were limited to the topic you describe, it would be worth reading. However, since he goes out of his way to mock, and malign, men who are suffering from the legal ills he grudgingly admits are real, the article comes across as sneering contempt for the less fortunate. So it’s actually more insulting that Kay Hymowitz’s effort in the WSJ.
I think he’s a bit younger than Bill Bennett. I think he’s a bit younger than me, in fact. Meaning he’s probably under 40.
His “defense” seems to consist largely of offense. Here’s a free clue: calling people names and impugning them as losers who cannot get laid is not a logical argument, nor is it a defense of anything at all. It is an insult. In some places, it would be considered an invitation to a fight, as I noted. Did I point out it’s not a logical argument?
Of course, there are women who find the idea of “let’s you and him fight” to be exciting…
And I continue to assert that I was not endorsing the comments, but rather the post.
I don’t see how you can maintain that fiction, since the comment by the author is logically connected to the posting – it’s the same writer, on the same topic. It’s all one thing. You cannot endorse the one without also endorsing the other, given that the comment was already in place when you posted the link here.
“His “defense” seems to consist largely of offense. Here’s a free clue: calling people names and impugning them as losers who cannot get laid is not a logical argument, nor is it a defense of anything at all.”
Actually, if you read the actual text as well as you read “between the lines” you will find that the man is actually defending something, and that is traditional fatherhood. That he uses insults seem to be a reaction to the insults he and his lifestyle has received from the MRA victim chorus. And, I don’t care if its “shaming language”, but acting like victims isn’t manly. At least the PUA types are out guns blazing, playing guerilla warfare.
Changes must occur, yes. But being a circular firing squad, where traditionalist husbands and fathers have to defend their choices before those who have been screwed by the system, will make sure that both our enemies will be in power for a long time.
What are some of those “insults” he has received from the “MRA victim chorus”? I’ve been in MRA circles a long time and have never perceived that MRAs have been anything but supportive of those who make the choice of fatherhood. Guys like Len MIsculin, John Murtari, or recently Thomas James Ball have gotten a lot more support from MRA types than tradcons.
Maybe if he was actually defending something where it needs to be defended – like the court system – instead of thumping his chest and bragging about what a RealMan™ he is he would not draw so many insults.
And, those traditional husbands and fathers who dismiss and insult those trying to warn them of the dangers of being screwed by the system, and try to make it out to be all those men’s faults, have a strange tendency to eventually have to change sides in the circular firing squad.
Thanks for the edit, Dalrock.
grizzledwolf
Actually, if you read the actual text as well as you read “between the lines” you will find that the man is actually defending something, and that is traditional fatherhood.
If he had stuck to defending fatherhood without impugning the motives of some men who disagree with him, the article might be useful. As it is, he’s basically saying that any man — even a father — who dares to suggest that marriage might be a risk, that women might have bad motives, is a loser who just wants to crawl in a hole in the desert and have sex with inanimate objects. Looks pretty insulting to me.
And I don’t have to read between any lines. Maybe you missed this part:
Athol Kay
A think a good deal of the wine in the Manosphere is made from sour grapes.
I suspect you are wholly correct. I often wonder how many of the angriest voices are also the voices of dudes who haven’t gotten laid in a long time. There’s also the possibility, raised by OneSTDV over at Gucci Little Piggy, that some of the most vocal agitators in the Manosphere are not so interested in female companionship to begin with – Ulysses.
This is just pure insult. Quite a few men who are righteously angry are divorced men, who are unable to see their children on any regular basis, who were divorced by women against their will. They are in effect living lives of indentured servitude. Athol Kay does a good job giving advice to married men who want to stay married, but when he strays into criticism of the righteously angry men, he generally screws up.
The implication that men who oppose feminism “just cant’ get laid” is regularly trotted out by feminists, it is part of the standard list of feminist shaming language here:
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example:
* “You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”
Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, “What if the grapes really are sour?” At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called “circumstantial ad hominem.”
Please note, grizzledwolf, that Ulysses employment of argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and fallacies do not prove anything.
Bonus: Ulysses use of Code Lavender.
And again I will point out that traditionalists often argue just like feminists, employing the same fallacies, the same shaming language, and the same cheap insults. No trad con has ever been able to explain why this is.
Changes must occur, yes. But being a circular firing squad, where traditionalist husbands and fathers have to defend their choices before those who have been screwed by the system, will make sure that both our enemies will be in power for a long time.
Changes must occur, eh? What changes do you want? Be specific. Lay it out.
As for your circular firing squad, spare me. I’ve read a lot of Spearhead articles, and I’ve never seen anyone in any comment attack fathers the way trad-cons routinely attack the righteously angry men. For example, I’ve never seen anyone claim that trad-cons are just frustrated guys who can’t get laid…or closet homosexuals. So there’s an obvious difference between the ankle-biting Ulysses and the men he clearly hates.
This is because MRAs support actual fatherhood. Tradcons haven’t done anything for fatherhood. If tradcons were serious about supporting fatherhood, then they would be marching in the streets against no fault divorce and would be censuring women in their churches who divorce and forcibly separate a father and his children.
I have noticed that tradcons want men to get married, but they don’t care if you stay married. I suspect this has more to do with fear of not producing enough Christian babies (white Christian babies for the more white nationalist oriented tradcons). Once the babies are produced, then fatherhood doesn’t matter to the tradcons, or they would be doing something to guarantee fatherhood instead of accusing men who see through their BS of not getting laid.
“Tradcons haven’t done anything for fatherhood. If tradcons were serious about supporting fatherhood, then they would be marching in the streets against no fault divorce and would be censuring women in their churches who divorce and forcibly separate a father and his children.”
Tradcons have been against divorce long before the MRA was even a gleam in some dude’s eye. Who do you think did they keep portraying as the bad guys during the fight to get no-fault divorce in the books? “Troglodyte”, “misogynist”, “neanderthal”, who do you think the people who brought you institutional feminism reserved these taunts and insults for? “American Taliban” was not directed at MRA’s, as far as I know. Tradcons have been the stuff leftist nightmares are made of, and that’s because they were the ones standing athwart history yelling “stop”. I’ll admit that the tradcons lost the fight, but no way in hell can you say that they did nothing.
“This is just pure insult. Quite a few men who are righteously angry are divorced men, who are unable to see their children on any regular basis, who were divorced by women against their will. ”
You’re getting in a huff over this? This?
“A think a good deal of the wine in the Manosphere is made from sour grapes.”
I read Spearhead. You cannot count the number of times men who choose to marry (which is, you know, part of actual fatherhood…or are we gonna start climbing the single mother logic tree here…) are called “manginas” and “white knights” and “herbs” and all manner of insult. Let’s not even get started on MGTOW. How do you think traditional fathers feel when their choices are maligned as slavery to women and the system? Or when their sons are told that to imitate their fathers would be suicide? I honestly sympathize with the divorcees crushed by the system, which why I still read Spearhead despite the “ready, fire, aim” nature of the comments section. But sometimes, I wonder if the MRM is willing to cast the baby out with the bathwater.
“And again I will point out that traditionalists often argue just like feminists.”
You are wrong. Feminism has appropriated the traditionalist way of arguing and corrupted it. What used to be an appeal to manly honor has degenerated into what you call “shaming language”, because to have shame used to be one of the marks of an honest man. “Man up” was old traditionalist-speak for “do the right thing” which was tied in to the traditional cursus honorum of life: apprenticeship, job, wife, kids, grandkids, retirement, etc. That feminists, realizing that they have no means of convincing obdurate men of the stupidity of their cause. have corrupted its usage into forcing men into the web of laws they’ve woven is not the tradcons’ fault. Don’t pin this on the tradcons. Feminists stole from the tradcons, not the other way around.
“And, those traditional husbands and fathers who dismiss and insult those trying to warn them of the dangers of being screwed by the system, and try to make it out to be all those men’s faults, have a strange tendency to eventually have to change sides in the circular firing squad.”
Don’t you get it? There are no sides to a circular firing squad. We just all end up shooting each other over the complexities of our own experience. Everybody is guilty, and the first step is to step back and stop shooting each other. We already have enough real enemies to be shooting each other in our own trenches.
“Changes must occur, eh? What changes do you want? Be specific. Lay it out.”
How about about becoming an actual movement, instead of hiding behind the “we’re not a movement” excuse I keep hearing from MRA’s? (I remember Novaseeker responding to a commenter criticizing the MRM’s dismissive attitude towards marriage by saying that there is no movement, only individual groups.) And how about supporting conservatives who actually want to roll back the divorce web. I remember reading on the “Thinking Housewife” (cue shrieks of manly anger) about a Minnesota state congresswoman who proposed a bill to return Minnesota divorce law to a fault-based system. Why doesn’t the MRM support people like that? Or was it because she was a woman? Pro-lifers have had great success with the incremental strategy. Why not anti-divorce groups? (Yes, those social conservatives who “do nothing” and “hate men” have been responsible for laws that limit the right of women to murder the unborn children of men, and have a few working models for MRA’s to emulate.) Oh, and here’s another idea. How about pooling money to send promising young men to college and become future lawyers and activists? And how about luring more women to the movement?
Why Does America Have So Many ‘Peter Pan’ Men? by Penny Young Nance
This article explains the cause of the very problem its author is whining about.
Working in an office full of women, many of whom are young, single gals, I hear all the time, “Where are all the good men out there?” Even in this post-feminist age of asserting independence from men and having both a career and a family, women still want their prince and these days, he can be really tough to find.
Every woman in that office means one less job for a man that wants to raise a family, meaning one less “good man” for them to find.
And, every woman in that office means one more woman competing for the even higher-status men. Meaning another woman who won’t get her Prince Charming.
That 2x multiplier effect is why society reached a tipping point so fast. A tipping point that was surpassed so quickly that no one noticed until it was far, far too late.
That’s why so many spinsters have their rationalization hamsters redlined, spinning to deal with the disaster that feminists led them to. They might have realized that feminism is a long-term failure, but they surely believed the crisis wouldn’t happen until after their Prince Charming rescued them.
Every woman in that office means two more women will be not get the “good man” they want. And the Federal Government has mandated for decades that women replace men in business, to the point that offices are full of women, where they create the very problem they’re complaining about.
Thanks for your emotional tirade, “grizzledwolf”, it lays out far better than anything I could say exactly what is wrong with the traditionalist-conservative viewpoint. No logic, no reasoning, no facts, just emotional ranting, name calling and shaming language. All apparently based on the premise that men exist solely to be of service to women – just like the feminists.
When I say that trad-cons argue like feminists, this is what I mean. Logical fallacies, typically beginning with ad hominem, abound. Shaming language, such as “you just can’t get laid”, “you’re really a homosexual”, etc. is common. But there’s nothing else there. “You disagree with me because you are a bad person” is not a logical argument, neither is “Because you disagree with me, you are a bad person”. The same goes for all the other shaming that feminists and trad-cons alike deal out.
Also, it finally hit me just today: you trad-cons assume an automatic moral authority over all other men, just because of your social and political beliefs. That’s likely what accounts for the free use of shaming language. Who else assumes automatic moral authority – moral superiority – over men, just because of who they are? Feminists, that’s who. And in both cases, this authority is assumed, never proven.
I strongly urge you to actually read the articles here on Dalrock’s site. It is possible to defend fathers, defend marriage, and defend a more or less traditional family organization without resorting to insults, ad hominems, and emotional drama. Dalrock does so. You could learn from him, if you choose to do so. Merely cruising through the comments, looking to pick a fight with with men whom you don’t approve of doesn’t really accomplish anything, aside from giving a few men a very light workout in logical debate. You surely do not win anyone to your side by namecalling, shaming language, etc.
And you can tell your close friends such as “anony-mouse”, and others, that the same advice applies to them.
Wow, the love is so thick it’s stultifying. I’m not going to change any minds here, but I am compelled to defend what I wrote, though I’m going to do it in abbreviated fashion.
The single life is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle for a man who chooses it. I am well acquainted with what the Bible says on the subject. That’s not even what the post was about. It was about the divide between men who don’t choose it and those who insist that it’s the only conclusion a thinking man can come to.
Terri nails my motivation with that.
I regret mentioning that some guys can’t get laid, but timing is important. When I wrote this, the general theme of the manosphere was that men should opt out to force women to change. I didn’t find it a viable strategy for the masses then, I don’t find it viable now. The difference is that then was when the conversation was littered with White and Nerdies and not more measured voices. Marriage was often discussed as though it were a game of Russian roulette with a fully loaded chamber.
Brendan – Though I didn’t differentiate, the post was a rant and not a planned and edited piece, I wasn’t referring to men who had actually been burned by marriage. I was referring to those who view marriage as being 100% awful risk and 0% likelihood reward.
Shaming language. I’ll cop to some of that. I liken it to jr. high football practice. It’s hyperbolic, feelings might be hurt, but some trash talking, even pointed trash talking, is just part of being male. Many in these parts disagree. I’m just a special snowflake in that regard.
I specifically wrote that my issue wasn’t with the choices, but with the proselytizing. I don’t begrudge your choices, don’t begrudge mine. Moreover, stupid laws are a symptom. Attacking symptoms doesn’t treat the cause. Unlike the common cold, I think the cause can be rooted out, but it requires some men, not all, be present and working within the beast. Not all wives are beasts and married couples are a strong defense and a potential bulwark against further decline. Just ask married man Dalrock.
Finally, I think ‘man up’ is a tempest in a teapot. Part of it is BS, but there are also some men who need to get over permanent adolescence. Blaming society isn’t a productive strategy. Yeah, the rot is deep, but that’s no reason to cry uncle. Having said that, Bennett, and Hymonwitz before him, miss the point, but I wrote my screed before them, so I wasn’t echoing or supporting their point. Maybe they ripped me off.
I was 34 when I wrote that.
“Thanks for your emotional tirade, “grizzledwolf”, it lays out far better than anything I could say exactly what is wrong with the traditionalist-conservative viewpoint. No logic, no reasoning, no facts, just emotional ranting, name calling and shaming language. All apparently based on the premise that men exist solely to be of service to women – just like the feminists.”
Wow, you didn’t even read it, did you? Or you just skimmed it in order to post the hate? You can’t even point out a single ad hominem, nor do you even address my suggestions. Whatever, man. What a waste.