I’ve just been looking through your yahoo answers profile (and your incredible 76% best answers from 58 answers) and I can only salute your sterling work. That’s an incredible amount of direct 1-to-1 good work you are doing. While I am an atheist I do believe biblical marriage is the best model for civilised society and personal happiness so I commend you on promoting it.
I generally shy away from focusing on definitions due to their tendency to take us into intractable ratholes, but the fact remains that definitions are important. In the case of the term manosphere this is especially important because there is a tendency outside the sphere to mistake the manosphere for a collection of readers and writers who are in general intellectual agreement. There is a kernel of truth to that belief, but it misses the truly profound differences in worldviews held by the main schools of thought in the manosphere. With the breadth of opinions within the sphere in mind, I can only offer my own definition and allow an opportunity in the comments for those who have a different take to offer their own.
One way to look at the manosphere is historically, and since the sphere itself is quite new this only means a few years back. This isn’t to say that those in the sphere have only been active for a few years, but the concept of the manosphere only goes back a few years (to my knowledge). Just a year or two back I would have offered a very simple definition of the sphere. If you were somewhat regularly included in Ferdinand Bardamu’s weekly link roundup, I would argue that this made you a de facto member of the manosphere. This is a very broad definition because Ferdinand drew from an incredible breadth of perspectives in his link roundup. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to state that his link roundups played a central role in knitting together extremely different groups into a common conversation.
And a conversation is what I would argue the manosphere really is. Perhaps more accurately the manosphere is the place where the conversation occurs, not unlike the broader term blogosphere. By this definition being a member of the manosphere doesn’t suggest much about your point of view, but it identifies you as engaging in the discussion.
However, while there is no such thing as a common manosphere orthodoxy, there are a set of core ideas held by nearly everyone in the manosphere. Interestingly these aren’t the ideas the sphere is commonly accused of being an “echo chamber” for. In fact, the ideas claimed to be manosphere orthodoxy are where the biggest active faults exist within the sphere. Game is the most prominent example of this. There is significant disagreement on whether Game works, and if it works whether it is moral. I offer the 599 comment discussion in response to Cane Caldo’s guest post on the topic and the heated semi formal debates on the topic hosted by A Voice For Men. Likewise the Social Pathologist has challenged the concept of the feminine imperative, as have Cane Caldo and many of my readers.
Unlike Game and the concept of the Feminine Imperative, what nearly everyone in the manosphere agrees on is the extensive tearing of the social contract by decades of feminist tinkering. For me this is mostly about marriage and our adoption of a radically new model of the family. Interestingly you can frame all of the main “factions” of the manosphere based on how they respond to the debasement of marriage. While I point out the debasement of marriage in order to try to restore something precious, Roissy makes it his life’s goal to enjoy all of the young sluts our society is sending his way while they postpone their search for a husband. In my post Dating Stanton’s Heroes I showed how Professor Mentu similarly chooses to respond to the glut of mothers who eject their children’s father(s) from the home. Even here though, Roissy and Mentu understand how foolish the larger society is for allowing and encouraging all of this to happen. This paradox is exemplified by the very kind comment from KrauserPUA quoted in the beginning of the post. A third group looks at the destruction of traditional marriage and basically says “good riddance” (MRA & MGTOW).
As with any simplification these descriptions of the categories aren’t perfect, and not everyone in the manosphere fits neatly into any one category. Also, even within each category there can be a significant breadth of perspectives. Still, I think this description of the main “camps” of the sphere is roughly accurate and helps conceptualize the main differences between them.
So we have three main groups which all acknowledge feminism’s radical change in the social contract while strongly disagreeing on how to respond to this reality. My own camp might be called the traditionalist segment of the manosphere, and we mourn the loss of marriage and are working to find solutions to shore up the culture, laws, and the church as well as specific steps individual men can take to reduce their exposure to the risk of frivolous divorce (going all the way back to the choice of whom to marry). At any given time and depending on the topic at hand two of the three groups (traditional marriage, Roissy’s group, and MRA/MGTOW) tend to be in agreement in disagreeing with the third group. However this is very fluid, and the alliances are intellectual and topic specific. There is generally a baseline respect for the fact that these fault lines exist, which can initially make it shocking to read say an Orthodox Christian and a pickup artist reinforcing each other’s intellectual arguments. They absolutely aren’t in agreement with each other on the question of sexual morality, but there will be times they are in agreement on the facts, etc. of any given issue. Since these core fault lines are so intractable between the three groups, there is generally some effort not to make them the focus of discussion and agree to disagree. These dormant fault lines are always there, but some care is taken to avoid perpetually getting locked in the same discussions over core values*. This doesn’t mean the question is off the table, it just means that after so many rounds everyone has already made their case.
The closest there is to a manosphere orthodoxy involves acknowledging the reality of the new order and responding with something other than “Man up and marry those sluts!” Cross either of those two lines and all three groups are in sudden agreement. You won’t be run out of town on a rail, but I would offer that the manosphere is well prepared to engage in those discussions and I’ve never seen anyone make a solid case either for “Nothing to see here folks, move along…” or “Man up and marry those sluts”.
There is a reason such divergent groups are participating together in a common conversation which goes beyond the previous uniting effect of Ferdinand’s link roundup. Feminism has been so completely successful in changing the culture and taking over all of our social institutions that opposing feminism has become one of the great taboos of our society. Making this worse, very few are even aware of this because the lion’s share of feminist thinking is no longer thought of as feminist thinking; it is simply thought of as normal thinking, or more accurately right thinking. Opposing feminism has become the heresy of our age, a thought crime few dare to even contemplate. The sickness of feminism is everywhere, but it is most striking in our churches. The cultural transformation has been so swift and so profound that most of what the Bible teaches on the topics of marriage and men and women is now quite literally unthinkable and unspeakable in nearly all of polite Christian company. The biblical frame of marriage is simply too radical for all but a handful of pastors to preach. As a result, the conversations Christians have in the manosphere today can’t occur anywhere else.
The basic misunderstanding of what the manosphere is becomes most visible when bloggers or commenters from outside the sphere are engaging someone from the manosphere either on a manosphere blog or especially an off sphere blog. Part of the misunderstanding comes from how foreign and radical even politely offered moderately anti-feminist thinking is to those outside the sphere. Because opposing the new feminist order even moderately is now so radical and there are multiple “camps” participating in the conversation, those from outside the manosphere very often initially badly misread whom they are interacting with. For example, it isn’t uncommon for very solid traditional members of the manosphere to be misidentified as either PUA or MGTOW even when their arguments are clearly traditional. For those who are new to the manosphere I would suggest being aware of how different the participants tend to be in any given discussion, and not to mistake agreement by two individuals on a point of fact to necessarily indicate broader agreement than is really there.
Note: This post is an adaptation of a comment I originally made on Zippy Catholic’s post How should the orthosphere engage the manosphere?
*Since this post is about the fault lines it is more likely than most to draw out heated disagreement in the comments section over the fundamental differences those fault lines represent.
You are doing God’s work, and I greatly appreciate that. Thank you. Tom
First comment?
I think manosphere should be renamed to GBFMOSPHERE. That will solve everything.
The Manosphere approaches things with the same set of assumptions. We get different outputs because we do different processing that fits each individual’s intentions and desired output.
I am also an atheist and am greatly interested in Dalrock, Elusive Wapiti, The Spearhead, sometimes The Thinking Housewife, Laura Grace Robbins and other religion-based blogs strictly because male-female relations defined by religion (even Islam) are far stronger and durable than state-defined relationships.
Just how long do you think societies would last if the making-the-babies-and-raising-them was drafted by a Congressman? College professor?
Religions last for thousands of years more for this than any other reason: the family is intact and serves as the basic unit or building block of all other things.
Replace the father with the state and you’re less than 100 years from being f*cking GONE!
Why do you think the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas disappeared? My guess: they said, “Hey, just for shits and giggles, let’s put the girls in charge.”
Poof!
(1) Man up and marry those sluts (Blue Pill)
(2) Build a life of hedonism (PUA)
(3) Forsake civilization (MGTOW)
(4) Be patient and pray (Traditional)
(5) Try to change the system from within (MRA)
(1) is untenable, (2) is unsatisfying, (3) is suicide, (4) is inaction, (5) is futile.
These seem like poor choices.
You’ve correctly identified the three poles (camps, segments? an appropriate term is difficult to find), but I think the nature of these fault lines is a bit more complex. The way I see it, they don’t represent ideological camps, or groups of likeminded people, but the division comes from the angle which these groups focus on. MRAs are focused on legal and social realities, and their discussions are about how to change the law and how people perceive what is going on. Traditionalists are coming at the problem from a religious and moral perspective. They are concerned with how their response to the culture fits the scriptures. Finally, PUAs look at the problem from a personal, practical point of view. It’s all about what you can do, as a person, to improve your own situation without involving the rest of the world.
So I would argue that the disagreements don’t happen across the groups, but within them. Traditionalists will disagree to what extent men have to step up and make sacrifices, as is sometimes asked of them. MRAs will vastly disagree on the political and legal solutions (some are liberal, some conservatives, and from experience they don’t unanimously agree on anything). Finally, PUAs have different techniques, and will disagree on things like the extent the man has to pay for dates, or how much bullshit they should endure from their dates.
I personally cannot place myself in any camp because I’ve been in all three, and in all three, I focused on the angle being discussed. And I acknowledge the necessity of all three camps. Feminism has affected all aspects of society, it’s only normal to have these aspects being discussed and analyzed by different individuals. And the sum of it all, as you’ve observed, is a grand discussion. As much as we all disagree on almost everything, we agree we need to have this discussion and not to remain silent.
I second Earl. Discovering the manosphere was a good thing for me, but soaking up the wisdom of DA GBFM lzzozozozololzozozzolol is even better!
Krauser’s comment reminded me that once in a while Roissy posts something that makes me hope he’ll convert before the end. The manosphere is in agreement that Marriage 2.0 is an enormous risk for men. I think those of us who subscribe to Christian sexual morality would say that it’s a necessary risk as extramarital sex is sinful, though obviously secular manosphere bloggers will disagree. I’ve found that even manosphere inhabitants who say that Marriage 2.0 is not worth the risks mostly agree that Marriage 1.0 was a beautiful thing, if not the basis of civilized society. I was pleasantly surprised when Roissy wrote a post several months ago essentially saying Pope Paul VI got it right in “Humane Vitae.”
Dalrock’s is my favorite manosphere blog because of 1) his excellent work digging up statistics and 2) I believe that a vital step to restoring a sane society is purging feminism from the churches.
The manosphere / androsphere is also a clearing house for ideas, as smarter men than I have pointed out. And many of the ideas are, as you note, diametrically opposed to feminism, thus there is no where else to work them out.
What it is not is “a movement”.
ar10308, I am not so sure that all men come into the ‘sphere with the same premises or assumptions.
There may be a few commonly held ideas, but as the OP makes clear, there are fault lines.
@empathologism
I think there was the virtual equivalent of the room going quiet while everyone tried to figure out if what would follow would be the food fight scene in the movie Animal House or (even more frightening) a group hug. I had this post ready to go several days ago and hesitated to publish it for just that reason.
“A third group looks at the destruction of traditional marriage and basically says “good riddance” (MRA & MGTOW).”
Is this really true? It might be (I’m honestly asking), but I always took their opposition to marriage as opposition specifically to marriage 2.0. You’re saying they’re opposed to marriage 1.0 (or biblical marriage, which I take to be similar if not the same) as well? I haven’t seen that.
The different thoughts, beliefs, and reactions to the ‘core concepts’ of how we see society are what make the manosphere so intriguing. I would have never thought I’d still be making discoveries, hashing out thoughts and concepts, and STILL be able to take things deeper after a year and a half spent in this part of the internet.
AR,
The basic assumptions I’m talking about include the ideas of Hypergamy and the Alpha/Beta dichotomy.
JT says:
” (1) Man up and marry those sluts (Blue Pill)
(2) Build a life of hedonism (PUA)
(3) Forsake civilization (MGTOW)
(4) Be patient and pray (Traditional)
(5) Try to change the system from within (MRA)
(1) is untenable, (2) is unsatisfying, (3) is suicide, (4) is inaction, (5) is futile.
These seem like poor choices.”
You are looking at wrong:
1) Perpetuate Evil
2) Fight evil with evil and hasten its destruction
3) Fight evil by passive resistence and hasten its destruction
4) Preserve a way to restore a better functioning world after the collapse
5) Fight evil by using its own arbitrary rules to hasten its destruction.
Ultimately though there will be no restoration without the collapse of the current feminist system. It is best to look at all the branches (2-5) as leading to that end.
@Dalrock
Go in for the hug, but then do it in a way that shows who’s boss; like a CEO or gangster giving “a piece of friendly advice”. You know: Like a pastor.
@ JT
You forget that you don’t have to change a society. All you have to do is change one individual person – your potential wife. Hell, I would say that you shouldn’t even try to do that but should open her eyes and see how she reacts.
Beyond that, any more action goes above and beyond. I start discussion on my facebook, with offline friends, and am currently writing a play. I do these things not because I expect change, but because I value the conversations and reactions they get. At minimum, even if all I get is hate, iron will sharpen iron. But often you get a majority of people that will hate, one or two that are particularly loud (and will remind you of Red from the MRA vids) and one or two that will actually listen to what you have to say. Learn how to frame the whole interaction for those one or two – save whom you can, and don’t even try to do that until you yourself are saved.
The manosphere is controversial in today’s society because it is a collective effort at uncovering the truth about women. Having feminine nature laid bare does not empower women and therefore must be denied by them, as it threatens their biological objectives. They must strive to maintain a psychological advantage over men because they are unable to compete physically. This extends to consciously or unconsciously constructing social conventions which they can use as tools in this power dynamic.
The manosphere is a disruptive, collective and successful attempt at exposing women’s manipulative techniques and beating them at their own game. Men who are successful at beating women at their own game are in position of power in relationships.
“She does not want truth: What is truth to a woman! From the very first nothing has been more alien, repugnant, inimical to woman than truth – her great art is the lie, her supreme concern is appearance and beauty.”
Nietzsche
Hey Dalrock,
Back in Novermber I wrote a piece on the Manosphere and rather than linking it, I copied and pasted it here since I think it’s relevant to this conversation.
Hawaiian Libertarian was discussing whether or not the Manosphere is dead. I left this comment in his comment section and I will post it here as well for all to read
The Manosphere is dead or alive and well depending on how you characterize it.
If you are talking about MRA’s trying to fight the system and get laws changed against long odds. Yes the Manosphere is dead.
If you are talking about websites or blogs where one person is trying be the big rock star and have tons of followers through the internet. The Manasphere is dead.
But is the Manasphere really dead? I think it’s alive and well and MGTOW will be growing in big numbers even if most of them don’t realize they are a MGHOW.
If you are a young man, there is a good chance you have seen an uncle, a father, a older brother, a male friend, or a male relative get screwed in the legal system. An example would be my brother in law. My brother in law is a Christian, a very hard working man and a man with integrity. Well his first wife (my sister is wife #2) had an affair with another man and wanted a divorce. It turned out he had to pay the legal fees for both him and his ex wife, he had to pay her alimony, child support, and got the bigger of the two properties. On top that his ex wife brainwashed his youngest child where now his youngest child want nothing to do with him and it’s been years since he has been in contact with his youngest child. Now his first wife made out like a bandit but this is something I took notice of, and is one of the biggest reasons I will never get married period in my lifetime. This means one less woman who will get to have a wedding day sometime in her lifetime.
Now this is one of millions of stories how men get screwed in divorce court. Even if many men don’t read MGTOW/MRA websites, individually will bail out. Thousands or millions of men individually will see what a sham marriage is and will come to the conclusion even if they were the perfect husband; they could get destroyed in an instant once their future wife got bored of them. Now you got thousands if not millions of men bailing out even without stumbling onto a manosphere website. Is the manosphere really dead? I think not!
Another subject matter would be the theory that 80% of the women in their prime years are having sex with just 20% of the guys. This means 80% of the guys feel neglected and not appreciated for the hard work that they did to try to be a productive member in society. Now that many these guys finally made it into their 30’s. How many of them really want to get in relationships with 30 year old plus women who after being ignored and treated like shit by them when they were younger and hotter. Especially when you got escort and Asian massage parlor sites like myredbook, eroticmp, usasexguide where if they paid $200, these guys can now have the sexual experience with hotter and younger women. Now many would say these guys are losers. The reality is paying and escort or an asian massage parlor babe $200 once a week, every other week, or once a month. Compared to what a marriage or divorce would cost, is a bargain. Now they are getting to enjoy sexual experiences for life with attractive college age ladies at a fraction of the cost a marriage or a divorce would cost. Again many of these men will never read MGTOW or MRA sites but will bail simply based on their life experiences. I forgot to go into the rapid rise of internet porn, development of Virtual Sex Technologies and Overseas sex vacations.
Now how many of these men worked hard and did everything they were suppose do but couldn’t get their career going but continued to get spited on for not having necessary experience or for other bullshit reasons like being discriminated against by feminist human resource departments. Now instead of getting a career going in their mid 20’s their career might not start until their 30’s if even that. This means in their 30’s they may see their first year of entry level pay rather than being on year 6 pay and having 5 years of full salary pay behind them already. Now many of these guys will decide it’s just not worth getting married and having kids simply based on financial costs and worried about their job security after these experiences even without the knowledge of the Family Court system or having any ill will towards women what so ever.
Now how many young men in the following generations will see that going to college and working hard is no guaranteed path to success, therefore will put minimal effort towards working hard and will spend countless hours playing video games or jerking of on internet porn or put all their effort into becoming a Pick Up Artist.
Now instead of carrying the burden of getting married and having kids, those who end making it into their 30’s unscathed may very well decide that if they had a college sweet heart who appreciated him and was loyal to him through thick and thin they most likely would have gotten married and had kids. Now these guys see the freedom of not being tied down to marriage and divorce and will have more financial resources and more free time to themselves. Should they get a uncontrollable sex urge they can get rent a attractive college age college escort babe for an hour or simply bust one out viewing internet porn.
Even though it’s young men who are feeling the brunt of this hostility in their teens and 20’s. When it’s all said done, these misandrist costs will transfer to women after big 30 hits.
Thousands if not millions of young men will bail out simply based on their own life experiences. Contrary to what some bloggers have say, the manosphere is alive and well and is growing by the thousands even if only a miniscule minority bothers reading MGTOW/MRA sites and blogs.
@JT –
(1) Man up and marry those sluts (Blue Pill)
I’d suggest “Blue Wafer”, since it’s been mainly the (small-c) churches that are pushing men to marry. The average man on the street doesn’t seem to care; of course, neither do most of the women. Too bad “Blue Cross” is already taken!
I’m reminded of Glenn Harlan Reynolds’ (Instapundit) observations on the Middle Class –
“The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay in, the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them. One might as well try to promote basketball skills by distributing expensive sneakers.”
A marriage does not make a responsible citizen, nor a good parent; rather, the sort of person who is a responsible citizen can make a good marriage.
Outcast Superstar makes some great points. One of them is the vitality of sex tourism. There will always be poor places on Earth, and all poor places have women who can ply their trade for yipee-skipee remuneration. There’s a reason few places clamp down on prostitution…they have money (e.g., Saudi Arabia). When you have money, you have the luxury of pretending you are civilized. When you’re poor, you unleash the whore.
Snowflake’s Oldest Profession is what keeps the gears turning when the oil wells run dry. Thank God for the male libido or we’d all be living in Bangladesh!
The Manosphere is a loose collections of internet blogs, forums, books, and other elements concerning themselves with male interests and masculine issues.
That’s it.
Sure, that’s hyper-inclusive — it was meant to be. The Manosphere is where the new patriarchy will evolve from, where the Puerarchy will go for mature advice, and where every dude will go to learn Game. It concerns, but is not limited by, the traditional male issues of divorce, marriage, fatherhood, sex, love, social responsibility, security, and self-improvement. Within the scope of that broad definition there is a breathtaking amount of intense and passionate discussion and scholarship on masculine issues, and very little agreement. Hence the balkanization . . . but that’s a good thing. Consensus is the absence of leadership.
@Cautiously Pessimistic
I’m open to correction from members of those two categories, but this is my understanding. Basically the argument as I understand it is that marriage 1.0 viewed men as draft horses. From this point of view the equalitarian promise of feminism is appealing but the failure by feminists to actually deliver equality (and just pile more on men) is the primary concern. Novaseeker discussed this in a recent post. However as I mentioned there is both crossover between the main “camps” and a breadth of opinion within each camp. I am fairly certain a number of my readers both identify as MRA or MGHOW and see the value in marriage 1.0.
I think there was the virtual equivalent of the room going quiet while everyone tried to figure out if what would follow would be the food fight scene in the movie Animal House or (even more frightening) a group hug.
I didn’t care, I was just pleased to be first.
I think that’s a very good characterization of it, Dalrock.
To me, the manosphere is like part coffee house and part clearinghouse. The coffee house part is where people come along and kind of shoot the breeze about stuff they are interested in. That happens quite a bit on these blogs, really. There is a sense of virtual community formed as people get to know the perspectives of different commenters, and to some degree align with them or in some cases dislike them.
The clearinghouse part is the cornucopia of different options offered by the three camps (and the variations within them as Zykos mentions) for how to deal with the problem we face, and the specifics of how to go about that in each vein (which can get very detailed). Here there will always be some disagreement between people in the different camps, as well as between people within the camps. But for the individual man, it’s kind of a smorgasbord of options he can review, test, use or discard as seems to fit his situation, his life plan, interests, risk aversion, moral system and what have you.
Another way I have thought about this is the medical analogy. In other words, I think it’s true that most people in the manosphere — virtually everyone — agrees on the principal diagnosis of what the disease is. There is some disagreement, especially on the intellectual and spiritual level, about what the cause of the disease is, or, going a step deeper, whether the disease is really just a symptom of another disease which is masquerading as a disease in itself. There is very little agreement in general about what the proper therapy is. In part this relates to disagreements on the higher level about the cause of the disease, and in part it relates to disagreements among people who see the disease and its cause the same way about what kinds of therapies are most effective under the circumstances, for various reasons.
The PUA camp acknowledges that the societal breakdown, moral decay and hypergamy indulgence we currently live in are the primary driving forces making their sexual escapades possible. PUAs also acknowledge that they are hastening and aggravating those trends; and that a wholesale return to marriage would slow the slut supply to a trickle.
The Christomanosphere is chock full of men (many of them married, including me) who strongly discourage men from marriage. We don’t hate marriage; we just acknowledge the risks far outweigh the benefits. Where that leaves men morally is either involuntary celibacy or sexual immorality; and that’s a conundrum that I think leads many men to marry anyway. At the very least we’re telling young men to go into marriage with eyes wide open; and that Game/relationship management will be necessary skill sets.
Unfortunately, it’s also leading me to the conclusion that despite his faith, a man has to be ready to walk away from a marriage that either (1) isn’t meeting his basic marital needs including regular sex; or (2) is so intolerable that the end of the marriage is the only way to preserve sanity. Whether this would free him up to remarry is a matter of biblical doctrine beyond the scope of this comment. It’s really a matter of survival. And his implied threat to walk away is the only real response and counter he has to the wife’s threatpoint.
@JT
There’s a difference between embracing hedonism and accepting the nature of human sexuality and its pressures on a relationship. The game-sphere is full of players because players tend to have the lion’s share of empirical data concerning women’s core sexual attraction triggers. What you do with that knowledge is your own affair.
Zorro says: May 15, 2013 at 12:57 pm
>>Why do you think the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas disappeared? My guess: they said, “Hey, just for shits and giggles, let’s put the girls in charge.”
The Mayans and Incas may have disappeared but the Aztecs did not. I well know, because my wife is descended from Moctezuma I, as are millions of other Mexicans. The only difference is, we have the evidence to prove it. Others probably do not. Her great-grandma was Rafaela Moctezuma, born 1866, died of typhoid, 1916. She is buried next to the local church with only a few other people.
And, the descendants of Moctezuma II (the Emperor of Cortes’ era,) moved to Spain in the 16th Century and were considered nobility. They no longer get money, but they still live there.
The Aztecs were conquered by Cortes, the Spanish conquistador, and his troops.
Instead of a group hug when I like the approach that guy took in the movie The Replacements. He’d scream and run across the field and tackle Keanu Reeves violently when he was pleased. It makes the bond stronger, cements the agreement better. I know people have envisioned tackling GBFM similarly…..am I right?
Nice again Dalrockz!!!
Ultimately, the Manosphere marches towards one, exalted Goal:
The Great Books for Men
All our troubles could be solved
And the decline opposed and halted
were we only to return
to the MORAL CODES OF HONOR
set forth by our FATHERS
by MOSES, HOMER, ACHILLES, ODYSSSUES, SOCRATES, and JESUS.
Were our courts and churches and universities
infused with the SPIRIT OF
MOSES, HOMER, ACHILLES, ODYSSSUES, SOCRATES, and JESUS
then the family would be exalted once again
alongside civilization
and all that is good.
When the CHURCHIANS stop raging against HOMER, MOSES, AND JESUS
And the PUAs pick up HOMER, MOSES, and JESUS instead of skanky butcocked skankz
Then shall the renaissance dawn
And then shall we join our
NOBLE FATHERS
in HONORING THAT WHICH WAS CREATED
OF, BY, AND FOR MEN
THE GREAT BOOKS AND CLASSICS
so that MEN could guide and exalt society
manifest civilization
and render JUST AND MORAL IDEALS
REAL.
lzozozlzlzolzzl
empathologism, you weren’t first comment. Sorry.
I don’t think too many guys are going to go the “bail out and pay the hookers” route. From what I have read, hookers report that most of their customers are married men, not single men. Something like 70-80%. I think that the reason for this is that the single guys either have access to free sex (top 20% or are in one of their rare relationships prior to marriage) or are using porn (porn use is through the roof in the culture generally). It seems that porn use not only is something men resort to due to a lack of sexual access, but is also something that, over time, can discourage men from dealing with women to some degree. For most guys this isn’t a total thing — guys prefer real women to porn, obviously. But on the margins it can be a substantial factor (e.g., guys with no health problems and attractive GFs havig ED due to excessive porn use), and I think that given the cost and residual legal and health risk associated with hookers, the availability of high definition basically free porn on demand offering an almost limitless variety of visual sexual stimulation leads single guys who are sexless to patronize hookers much less than married guys do. For all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about married guys using porn, they simply don’t have the same possibilities to do so as much as a single guy does due to the living arrangements — so hookers are a bigger outlet for sexually frustrated married guys than for single guys.
I like Ian Ironwood’s summation the most.
An addendum: I would argue that the reason the manosphere exists in this online form is that the old men’s clubhouses and spaces either no longer exist or have been opened to women. Boys like me (and many of our fathers) have never really had years-long coffee-house discussion involving men only. When women are present the subjects we discuss here are off-limits.
Can someone please tell me what MGTOW means?
@ Dalrock
Another well thought out, articulate, & spot on post.
I am already versing my young son in the ‘red pill’. If any generation has a chance, it’s his. He easily sees the B.S. coming out of the mouths of 13 year old girls.
AND
I will continue to prepare him to counter their ‘Girrrrrrll Power’ horseshit.
Mens Group To Oppose Women?
empathologism, you weren’t first comment. Sorry.
Crestfallen
[D: A cruel hoax by an overactive spam filter.]
@Casey – Men Going Their Own Way, ie doing their own thing, not dating, not looking for a relationship, and not necessarily caring about sex.
That’s how I understand it anyway.
Men Going Their Own Way
Can someone please tell me what MGTOW means?
“Men Going Their Own Way”. It has kind of morphed in meaning over time. The origin of the term was among MRAs an referred to a group of MRAs who didn’t want to be a part of the “organized” MRA any longer, due to disagreements with it, and who therefore decided to go their own way. Over time it has morphed to mean guys who generally are living aloof from the world of women.
Married men use hookers, because they can afford hookers in the first place
Most single men dont have the finances to afford a regular hooker
Married men usually earn more then single men …
As I posted on another thread just recently….
Truth #1. Women, throughout all history, have harbored a deep genetic impulse to marry, or mate with, men of higher status. (“Hypergamy”)
Truth #2 Feminism, throughout the modern West, has lowered the relative social and economic status of men.
The collision of these 2 facts, explains most of what’s wrong with our society.
The Manosphere is the only place where these facts, and their implications, are discussed.
@nova
“It has kind of morphed in meaning over time.”
Actually MGTOW came first, & MRA evolved out of MGTOW
Which is why the MGTOW forums & blogs, & no ma’am predate the MRA movement
MRAs existed long before MGTOW forums and blogs like no ma’am. Ask Anonymous 71.
The Manosphere was created when the PUAs and the White Nationalists co-opted the Men’s Rights Movement.
Let me be very honest.
The MRM started in the mid-70s, and entered the internet as a usenet group. Then blogs, and then Youtube channels.
In 2009, Welmer got together a few bloggers sympathetic to the MRM and formed a collective blog called the Spearhead. The group started small (Opus,y Novaseeker) but accumulated more bloggers, including Dalrock, Ferdinand Bardamu and Roissy. Roissy is the undisputed founder of the Manosphere.
Roissy was a PUA first and foremost, but occasionally commented on the state of society and offered “deep” insights into women. (To this day, the majority of commenters are PUAs and cads.) This style would be picked up by Roosh and used in his successful business venture ROK. Roissy added nothing new: he made case study after study of pickups and made bizarre conclusions, and posted flawed interpretations of research. Ross Jeffries, David DeAngelo and Mystery laid the groundwork for him and he built an entire website on that. Roissy coinedy “Rationalization Hamster” though, and his Sixteen is the basis of LTR game.
I remember in 2011, the Spearhead was obscure and unheard of, and trolls were invaders from radical feminist websites. The truth is that the MRM, not the Manosphere, went mainstream in 2012. Within the year, the word misandry became mainstream, and criticism and rejection of feminism became socially acceptable and popular. Today, a blue pill article is followed by red pill coments on CNN, Salon and elsewhere.
Athol Kay is an opportunistic money-grubber who repackaged Roissy’s compilations of PUA ideas and invented Married Game. He used it to sell two books to middle-aged suburbanites who would otherwise feel squeamish about reading Roissy. He is a e-sergeant who tells married man to man up, YES MAN UP, and GAME THOSE FRIGID EX-SLUTS. Women are by nature flaky and contemptful of men, and you need Game to crack her open.
Rollo Tomassi is a charlatan who hides his “scientific” analysis behind stretched out syntax, which is in reality: colloquial language rearranged into six to eight phrases per sentence and infused with Latin and Greek words USED TO EXPLAIN THE SCIENCE OF RELATIONSHIPS between men and women. His personality is a mixture of that of an Arab sheikh and a French philosopher, and oozes out on his blog. His writing style lacks clarity, forethought and organization. He is such a bad writer that only Manospherians can understand what he’s trying to say half of the time.
The Manosphere was created when dregs like Roissy, Ferdinand and Koanic Soul; opportunists like Athol Kay and Rollo; and kooks like Hawaiian Libertarian bought into the MRM. Let us not forget the unsung heroes:
Bernard Chapin
Barbarrossaaaa
ManWomanMyth
ThugticianWisdom
Zed the Zen Priest
and many others unmentioned.
MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way
Here’s my way: Fuck marriage. I don’t need to replicate my DNA to feel I made an impact on human society. That’s what ice hockey is for. If I want to Game young chicks like some pathetic middle-aged PUA, then so be it. But I won’t marry anyone. The State has nothing to say about my personal relationships. Women love me because I treat them like dirt. I discount every statement out of their mouths and refute their opinions like litter from an overflowing trash can at McDonald’s. If I have a female relative who likes to be near me I consider myself a failure. Women are hypergamous, and it’s sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much easier to convince a woman she is tree-stump stupid and barely worth your civility let alone your DNA than to become the next Donald Trump. The higher up in the world a woman goes, the funnier it is to watch them cry when you compliment them on their crow’s feet and remind them that “Seabuscuit wants his shoes back.”
And to Anonymous age 71: Details, schmetails. I’m the descendant of Cardinal Richelieu. Or was it Richard Burton? Marcus Aurelius? Whatever…I’m 2 kewl 4 skewl and you’re not the boss of me.
Dalrock, what advice do you have for pastors and church leaders who want to convey what the Bible really teaches about marriage and submission but find it politically untenable?
It’s not so much about job security. It’s about subverting the culture without being alienated from the people I want to reach out to. Teaching the traditional biblical view of gender roles in Silicon Valley (where I minister) is an easy way to get pigeon-holed as a dogmatic, regressive fundamentalist. Plus I don’t want to be lumped together with the 5-10% ultra-conservative Christians whom I agree with in substance but not in form (judgmental, condescending, and parochial).
So what I do is share my views privately and in my men’s group but I’m, at times at a loss for how to communicate this to a wider audience because of how brainwashed we all are.
“Earl says:
May 15, 2013 at 12:55 pm
I think manosphere should be renamed to GBFMOSPHERE. That will solve everything.”
“Beefy Levinson says:
May 15, 2013 at 1:09 pm
I second Earl. Discovering the manosphere was a good thing for me, but soaking up the wisdom of DA GBFM lzzozozozololzozozzolol is even better!”
YESSSS!!!! IT WODL SOLVE IT ALLA!!!! LL!! lzozlzzoozozoz
lzozozzozozooz
HEREIN
GBFM EXALTS DA RED PILLZ RED PILLZZZZZ lzolzlzzlzolz
i can show you the way, neo, but you will have to walk it zlozlzlzozzlozlzlzo
ozlzlz the more you read me and roissy the mroe your life will improve as you come to see the fiat butthex matrix for what it is — you will see the green streams of fiat data (dripping with buttdouche fresh off the butthex presses) like the matrix but with a subltle difference as some of you wieinsteinas have already seen for urself lzozzll
at the ned of the matrix neo saw it as
1010101011110100101
1101001010100101010
1101010101011101001
0101010000010101111
0100101111111101010
1101010101001001001
1101001010101001010
1101001010100001010
0100101010010101010
and when you have walked the path you too will see the butthexing matrix for what it is and how the fed funded the desouling of womenz with massive amounts of douchcock frrom an early age in all tehir orfices and are acting through the soulles temptresses to seize your assetts now when a girl says, “what i really really want is a nice guy, i’m tired of the asswholes (lozlzl who got her younger hotter tighter)” instead of hearing what she says and then trying to be a nice guy you will hear the truth behind the butthexing matrix’s facade lzozlzl:
10101010010110101010101010
10101010101010101010010110
101010z01010z0101l01zzlzozll1
1o1o1o1o1ozozozo1o1o101011
1o1o1o1oozozzozozozozo01011
lozlzlzozlzozlozzlzozlzozlzozzoz1
1010i1o1o1want1010a01010001
douchebag10to butthex me0101
010and i want you 2 buy me100
01meals and a ring while i01011
0101give by butt & vagina01010
010away for free to butthexers1
100who tape it scretely lzozl100
zlzozllzlzlzozlzozzloozzllz and101
1010make my anus sore for010
1010days010101 101010101011
1010lolsolsoslslollzzlozlzzozlz010
0101pay 4 my meals0101001010
101010and1010maybe1010u1010
1001can1010touch1010my10dry
101001dried1010up110pussy100
101stds stds stds0101010101010
10101buy me 1010a ring1010101
1010for100the1010pussy1010i100
0101gave1010away1010for0101
1010free1010when1010it0was10
100younger1010hotter0110lozlz
lolzlztighter1010and010propose01
1010so1001i1010can0110rape10
1010your101010anus1010in0101
1010divorce01010court1010and01
10transfer010your0101assets1001
1010to1010bernanke1001and1010
1010the1010fiat1010buttheex1010
1001matrix01010lozlzlzlzlzlzzozllzzl
omglzozlzlzllzlzlzzzlzllzlzlzlzlzlzllzlzllz
10lzozllzlz0zzllllzllzllzlzz1ozozlzlzl0
010111010101010101101010101
the sublime act of butthex is a beuatiful metaphor for what the fed does to a currency and a country, which is why the neocon weekly standard celebrates butthexers–es[pecially those who taope it without the girkl’s conthent and profit off the act. lzozlzlzlzl!
[on the war that devastated the Real World]
Morpheus: We don’t know who butthexed first, us or them. But we do know it was them that videotaped it without our consent while scorching the sky wioth a long trail of butthex lies. At the time, they were dependent on butthex power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the common man’s collective anushole. lozzllzlzlzzl
Trinity: I know why you’re here, Neo. I know what you’ve been doing… why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer reading roissy & GBFM. You’re looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn’t really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It’s the question that drives us, Neo. It’s the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.
Neo: What is the butthex fiat Mathrix?
Trinity: The answer is out there, Neo, and it’s looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.
[Neocon sees a black cat walk by them, and then a similar black cat walk by them just like the first one]
Neocon: Whoa. Déjà vu.
[Everyone freezes right in their tracks]
Trinity: What did you just say?
Neocon: Nothing. Just had a little déjà vu.
Trinity: What did you see?
Cypher: What happened?
Neocon: A black cat went past us, and then another that looked just like it.
Trinity: How much like it? Was it the same cat?
Neocon: It might have been. I’m not sure.
Morpheus: Switch! Apoc!
Neocon: What is it?
Trinity: A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the butthexMatrix. It happens when they change something. Now that I am an aging women in the butthex matrix with her eggs and gina drying up having given the best years of her anus to drunk alphas during her college desouling years via massively multiplayer asscockig in the butt sessions and getting her fiat mba (masters of butthexing in da Anus) and blowing upper level mangement lzozllz, the butthexmatrix is now delivering my cats. Two this morning and now two more. yaya! lozlzl
lozlzlzlzlzl
Morpheus: The Fiat lozllolozllzzl butthex Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. lzozozozozl! But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, bloggers, teachers, betas, lawyers, herbs, carpenters, and neocon womenz writing for the weekly standard, repeating the fiat lies of secretive tapers of butthex without teh girls conthent lzozlzlzlzl. The very minds and anusholes of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that butthex system and that makes them our anus’s lozlzlzozzozozl enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unbuttplugged. And many of them are so inured to butthex, so hopelessly dependent on the system of secretive tapings of butthex without tehir conthent, that they will fight to protect it and reapet the lies of secretive tapers of butthex in teh pages of the weekly standard even though they seem to be nice neocon ladies.
[Neo’s eyes suddenly wander towards a woman in a red dress]
Morpheus: Were you listening to me, Neo? Or were you looking at the woman in the red dress (woman as temptress in the heor’s journey myth) who was desouled via copious fiat-funded butthex from butthexers celerbated in teh pages of the weekly standard?
Neo: I was…
Morpheus: [gestures with one hand] Look again.
[the desouled, massively-butthexed woman in the red dress is now a bestselling new york times author, pointing a cock at Neo’s ass; Neo ducks]
Morpheus: Freeze it.
[Everybody and everything besides Neo and Morpheus freezes in time]
Neo: This… this isn’t the butthex Matrix?
Morpheus: No. It is another training program designed to teach you one thing: if you are not one of us lozlzlzlzlers, you are one of them butthexers.
lozlzlzl
i wanna start lzozlzlzl media where we have a character based on roissy who sees green streams of streaming data every time a bernankified chick opens her moutrh and throughout every episode all the herbs and betas pay for the meals of the chix roissy butthexes in the end due to his supreme knowelge of being THE ONE lzozlzlzllzzl
i would be more like one of those minor characters along for the ride in the mother ship
zlzoozolzol
stanidng off to the side going lzozlzz zlzozlzozlzozlz zlzozllzozlzlzlz and don’t gte me worng i would score with all the hotties but like roissy woudl get first pick for his lead dick and i’d get the next two as that’s only fair lzozlzlzlzllzlzllzl
@HKU
Who the fuck are you?!! I never seen you comment before and you drop bullshit like this. I have to push back on dissing Rollo, his is easily on of the best sites around. I learn a ton of good stuff from his blog.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Manosphere is.
You have to see it for yourself.
I’m interested in watching the manosphere meet… um… everything else. Orthosphere, I think I saw mentioned here. Maybe just “popular zeitgeist.”
A few weeks ago, I went to a discussion group centered around Sheryl Sandberg’s book Lean In. This is at an Ivy university. Strong coordinated promotion of the book and discussion groups by the womens’ groups to propel the “discussion.” I went on a lark to provide some “diversity” of viewpoint.
Unsurprisingly, I was the only guy to show up. Interestingly, the only other person who showed up was the event organizer, a girl. All the other girls–and she’d been planning on ~10 people coming–flaked (the irony kills me… maye this is a good sign). So we got to talking for a while about some of the underlying assumptions of the book, and etc. The highlight of the evening was when the girl asked me “so why don’t men want to be involved in this? What would it take to get them to be more active?” So I had a great opportunity to talk culture, etc in a non-adversarial environment, which was (I think) pretty eye-opening to her in the sense that she hadn’t even considered that the other side of the table has a point of view, let alone what that POV might be.
Many girls simply aren’t legitimately exposed to the facts of differences between the sexes or alternate (read: non-feminist) viewpoints on social roles, so one of the main roles of the blogs like Dalrock’s (and in the above conversation, I pointed out a couple of the math posts from La Griffe du Lion) is to help articulate the viewpoint in a way that’s sufficiently nuanced and fact-backed that even a knucklehead such as myself can point out major themes and support with evidence when given the opportunity. I can mix-and-match viewpoints as appropriate, because I’m not hard-and-fast in any one camp, but I like having a variety of tools to reach people when given the opportunity.
I am reminded of a passage, which I cannot immediately find, in Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind, where Ryle imagines a person being taken around some buildings: the Visitor, sees the Basketball Court, the Lecture Rooms, The Dormitories, The Theatre, The Private Offices of the Professors, but then turns to his host at the end of the tour and asks’ ‘Yes, but where is the University?’. Ryle observes that the Visitor has made a category mistake. It is perhaps what we are in danger of doing, (in asking ouselves what or perhaps even where is The Manosphere) or perhaps, to use an old expression, failing to see the wood for the trees.
I would place it at about 1990 that I first became aware that there was something inherently Misandrist creeping into society (although its precursors were already there) and over the next two decades I have become increasingly aware of its pernicious influence – I recall addressing a group of some ten or so men, al fresco, in about 2003 thereon, to merely shrugs of their collective shoulders; such are men – so that the arrival of the Internet, meant that sooner or later I would discover those on-line resources which resonated with me, and from which I have learnt a lot – putting into words feelings that remained illusory – and reassuring myself that I was neither going mad nor the only person who had similar concerns. Whether I am a PUA, MGTOW or otherwise I have no idea and would not perhaps be interested in deciding – it doubtless would depend on my mood.
I have never been a blogger at The Spearhead (or anywhere else).
This is hands down, the best post on this subject I have ever seen.
And, finally, a great summary of why Western culture has degenerated in terms of our social contracts.
This whole Game-Your-Wife thing goes off the rails real quick once your wife realizes she can use the threat of taking your children from you to win any argument. All she has to say to anyone is that she doesn’t feel “safe” around her husband and he is immediately treated like an abusive rapist-type with the potential to be a child molester. If you start to Game your wife and you are at all ineffectual with it (“hmm… you need more Alpha; wait… you must not be doing it right”) then there are legions of churches that will dispatch free assistance to her to train her in Joel & Kathy style counter-game.
That’s right: Joel & Kathy are not outliers. They are indiscreet buffons… but your average “evangelical” type is pretty much in agreement with them, even teaching out of books that set up essentially the same frame. I see church leaders pitching God as what they *think* women want– God as the ultimate lover, consumed with a *passionate* holy fire, totally hot for *you*. (Recent tract sighted: “Love Letter from the Lord” or some such.) Sunday after Sunday it’s basically intimated that a woman’s acceptance and approval is what makes men and relationships holy. Men in cell groups meekly praise god for their nagging crones and wonder what kind of dirty old man they’d be without them.
I fear that there is no reasoning with any of these people.
Good job shinzaemon, you can decipher his garbled ideas, and learn something from him.
He coined the FI, but won’t give it a definition. FI is a fluid concept that changes with every discussion and molds to fit a real-world anecdote.
His editor asked him, “What is Game?” Of course, he gave a vague answer. Someone who can’t explain his ideas clearly and systematically 1. lacks a firm grasp of the English language and therefore 2. can’t think clearly. Language shapes thought, and thought shapes language.
Rollo has also shown contempt for sexual morality. He posted the story of a 29 year old virgin girl who won a gold medal in the Olympics, and made fun of her. One thought he would acknowledge that she refrained from riding on the cock carousel. Apparently not.
Another post tells the story of a well-travelled man and a man who lived in his village all his life. The post was a thinly veiled argument for sexual experience. His hatred for omegas is documented.
Rollo slept with 40 women in his life, and encourages young men to follow in his footsteps. He wrote 8 eight posts on “plate theory”, something that only pornstars, professional bodybuilders and celebrities can do with sluts and strippers. You can’t screw eight women without lying and manipulating, and telling them you’re rich and famous, and this is no heroic act.
Chastity and giving up beauty for sweetness of personality and reliability are nobler than sowing your wild oats. There are idiots here that want to marry a slut and reform here through Game.
The commenters here should know better than to LOOK UP TO (rather than “hang out with”) narcissistic cads and keyboard warriors like Roissy, Roosh and Rollo.
Atheists and Christians can come together over this thing.
Masculine and feminine.
Just because a guy doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean he can’t spout truth…just because a guy believes in God doesn’t mean he can’t spout out lies.
@nova
“MRAs existed long before MGTOW forums and blogs like no ma’am.”
What sites are you referring to? All the MGTOW sites predate mra sites by at least 5 to 6 years …
HKU is an idiot, Roissy isnt the father of the manosphere, Roissy teaches watered down game
Manic high, the PUA & game community came YEARS before the mgtow & the manosphere
PUA’s & Gamers created the manosphere, we laid down the foundations for the red pill, decades before mgtow, mra’s & the manosphere came onto the scene …
Tom Leykis & the pickup communities were around decades before the mgtow & mra’s
Look at the dates on the alt.seduction usenet newsgroups, they go back to at least early 80’s …
The manosphere has come about because of several societal factors.
Firstly, the desire of men to get better results with women, whatever that context.
Secondly, the internet, which provides an unmoderatedforum where ideas can be exchanged.
Thirdly, the presence of several extraordinarily good bloggers who have been able to be spokesmen for the various “camp” position.
But the father of the manosphere is really Roissy. His genius was in recognising that most men’s failure with women was due to the cultural programming they received. His writing style literally shoved the red pill down a lot of guys’ throat. But apart from being a diagnostician, he also provided therapy, both of which ran counter to accepted mainstream cultural memes. His writing style forcefully emphasised the difference between reality and culture. I think once guys accepted this they also started to question other aspects of culture as well.
I think its a great thing that there is no accepted party line in the manosphere except for a desire for the truth. I think this is what unites all the various aspect of the mansophere; the desire gain a greater understanding of reality, no matter how politically incorrect. This, of course, puts them well outside the mainstream where consensus and compromise rule. Ferdinand was great, in that he provided a forum where any nutjob could get a fair hearing. He was a great editor.
“He wrote 8 eight posts on “plate theory”,” Plate theory is basic soft harem management, or social circle game
Plate theory or social circle game, is basic social common sense, practised for centuries by most civilisations
Calling a gamer like Rollo immoral is pointless, as morality has nothing to do with game or pua, its the logical response to a society filled with immoral sluts & whores
HKU seriously get your head out of your ass …
I have always had a problem with the term “traditional marriage.” It seems to assume that the reordering of relationships around feminist demands, sexual reorientation, and political considerations is actually marriage. I do not see my intents in the manosphere as a return to “traditional marriage” from current marriage, but rather a recognition that genuine marriage is actually rare and obscured and there needs to be a rediscovery not of tradition, but of marriage itself.
What sites are you referring to?
It’s not about sites, Mack. The MRM, and MRAs, go back to the 1970s. Anonymous age 71 was one of them. It long predates the internet.
@Nova
You could say that about any group lol
I meant as a large group or movement
Anyway i’m referring to internet presence & movement
From my research, the mgtow had the earliest & largest internet presence & influence, which then went onto give birth to the more radical MRA
Ironically the early internet days of the mgtow & mra, were alot better then they are today
Check out the early days of the Spearhead, before Price put his liberal foot down & started censoring the angry young men looking for a place to voice their opinion …
The posts & comments back then were amazing
Today idiots like barbarossa whine about men being too radical or edgy … wtf happened to these guys lol
Atheists and Christians can come together over this thing.
I have never had any faith in any supernatural, and I’ve never fought with any of my true-believing friends about it either. One can learn a lot of good stuff from literary sources like the bible and its characters (Jesus, Moses, etc) and nobody can deny this.
Shout out to Rollo from me, too. Yes, the truths he tells are probably pretty uncomfortable reading, particularly for those with sensitive natures. He’s one of the necessary pillars of thought out here all the same.
Regards, Boxer
SomeGuy:
If a wife isn’t responding to game, she’s probably already checked out of the marriage. A threat to “take the kids away” is a big deal and is a body blow to the marriage. The response needs to be swift and certain. He needs to tell her that if she decides to divorce and take the kids, she will be setting in motion a chain of events that cannot be stopped. The divorce juggernaut will devour all of them, the marital assets will be wasted and depleted, and it will be mutually assured destruction.
Anyway i’m referring to internet presence & movement
From my research, the mgtow had the earliest & largest internet presence & influence, which then went onto give birth to the more radical MRA
Okay. Well, the reason for that was that MGTOW really gained momentum in the early to mid 2000s, which was right before the manosphere thing started to pick up steam in the late 2000s with the rise of Roissy. But the MGTOWs came from MRAs, not the other way around. MGTOWs were initially mostly ex-MRAs who turned away from activism, for various reasons. MRAs are not radicalized MGTOWs. It’s more the reverse. The history is important because it helps place the contemporary MRAs in their proper context — which isn’t a radicalized version of MGTOWs. They’re the descendants of an MRM that goes back a few decades.
Check out the early days of the Spearhead, before Price put his liberal foot down & started censoring the angry young men looking for a place to voice their opinion …
Yes, I was one of the guys involved at the very beginning of it. I remember going back and forth a bit with Bill about what it should be named and all that. I think he had to clean things up a bit, though, because he was trying to do something more with The Spearhead that the commentaries were really starting to take away from. A rowdy, unhinged group of commenters can very much get in the way of what a website like that is trying to do. The problem that happened there, which we couldn’t have anticipated at the time, was that things grew and became more splintered. The idea was to create a magazine with various contributors. Then others replicated that in a different way, for a different generation (think Berdamu), and in a multiplicity of directions which The Spearhead was never envisioned doing. So to get things back on track and being more focused, he had to clean that up. It was the right decision in my opinion. Bill still writes a lot of great articles, really, which are well worth reading.
This reveals something of greater importance and perhaps out of scope of the manosphere proper. It reveals the extent to which feminist ideals have dissolved themselves into society as a form of newspeak. Since feminism hit its third wave, there has been tremendous consolidation in viewpoints on what proper portioning of marriage roles and proper behavior in a marriage should be. Previously it was more acceptable to have differing views on marital structures and parental responsibilities, this allowed an overlooked, but necessary, freedom in how family structures arranged themselves such that father and mother could appropriately express what they thought their children needed.
If you are any student of history, you know that large-scale consolidation of viewpoints into a single acceptable view always preceded social disaster. What is unthinkable to suggest now is what was accepted as a reality only 25 years ago (and remains reality denied). These days you actually get shouted down if you dare to suggest to some women that men are physically stronger or faster than women, when only two decades ago it was simply accepted truth. You get labelled as a misogynist or card carrying member of the patriarchy now if you suggest that women’s best lifelong industry is rearing children, even though this was an accepted truth before I was born; Yet for daring to suggest that a man’s only worthwhile work over his lifetime will be his career, no one bats an eye. These days for saying that boys should be allowed to be boys and roughhouse and fight, you are labelled a violence enabler and shouted down when only two decades ago most schoolyard fights were followed with handshakes and embarrassed apologies a day after a suspension.
It is this building of a narrative that is destruction of a society, this shoving out of opposing views. It is the removal of viewpoints that destroys a nation. In a free society there should be no narrative, no single view, no accepted or preferred vocabulary. The groupthink becomes so strong in affected communities/countries that people with actual free thought sound like anarchists (that should give you pause). This method of destruction seems to only be recognized decades later, when the casting out of the undesireables begins. I suggest that a soft “purge” in the developed world has already begun, by use of political correctness. Keep in mind this shift occurred through no central direction, no conspiracy, just plain old-fashioned human nature and the desire to be on a winning team before considering personal ethics.
Yes, human nature is frightening.
I think Dalrocks downplaying some of the major players, in the manosphere
Dalrock’s downplaying the massive part played by christian conservative men, who understood the truths of game & the pua community & applied it as an extension to their existing sense of morality & ethics
It’s christian conservative men who make up the bulk of the manosphere
Which is why you hear a lot of comments on how unethical & immoral game is & having to change their world views
It’s also why the more hard-core red pill guys, get moderated by Price & Elam on their sites
Alot of the complaints & whining about the manosphere arent by feminists & manginas, theyre usually in the majority by whiny christian men
Christian conservative men, play an important in the manosphere, they give the manosphere a moral compass
Which is a pain in the ass, when dealing with an immoral society, as the red pill & game requires you to play dirty when it comes to women & a male hating society …
@Dalrock:
Another outstanding post. Your writing (articulation) skills are truly outstanding, in addition to the content.
@JT:
I’m willing to change the system from within but am clueless how to begin. I define myself as a traditional conservative who has, to a point, become MGTOW. I’ve never been a PUA as I have only ever wanted my own woman to share life with. I’m divorced and now am content to take care of my wonderful son half of each week, exercise all day long, eat, pray, and read.
Here’s my generalizations about the Manosphere
If you’re not here, then you might be a pussy.
If you don’t understand it, then you’re probably a pussy.
If you got a problem with it, then you’re definitely a pussy.
And if insulting feminism is the new heresy then…
This is a what a heretic looks like.
@Mark Minter says:
Lacks rigor! Show your work!
I haven’t explored the manosphere entirely yet. I did not come from a PUA/learn-game-first side of things. To me the manosphere can be summed up as a repository of unvarnished truth. It’s not pretty, the inhabitants often disagree strongly, but they all reject the social fantasy perpetrated on everyone by the dominant narratives of our corrupted western social structure.
@Nova
“But the MGTOWs came from MRAs, not the other way around. MGTOWs were initially mostly ex-MRAs who turned away from activism, for various reasons. ”
Yes, fully agree, if you look at the antifeminist movements in the 70’s, & even earlier the men protesting the suffragettes
From what I understand, MRA’s believe they have rights outside of the right to vote & common law
That’s what makes the MRA such a radical concept, that men have specific rights & needs outside of the constitution & outside of the roles they play in society
& in fact the constitution & the law are used against men to imprison them
This is a MASSIVE departure from seeing men as working class or victims of the aristocracy
Price & Elam dont realise, the real battle isnt about mens rights
It’s mens rights to be masculine
Price & Paul Elam have to realise The MRA isnt about men rights
Its about mens rights to be masculine
Thats what the MRA is really about, their right to be masculine testosterone filled men
Which is why Price & Elam dont really understand what the MRA is about
It’s about mens right to be masculine testosterone filled men, & the importance of rejecting women & society
Primarily its about rejecting women & society, as women & society have always preyed on men
This is a concept Price & Paul Elam dont really understand
Rejecting women is a core principle of the MRA, as women are in fact predators of men
Fantastic characterisation using the perception of marriage as lynch pin.
One of the current developments i watch with interest is what will happen to a burnt out player:
http://www.rooshv.com/the-anticlimactic-end-of-a-player
Where to from there will be fascinating to watch.
Regarding MGTOW, I wonder what most people think about this. I’m very aligned with the traditional marriage camp (although I know it has its’ issues) because of my Christian and ethical beliefs but if I were ever to become unmarried, would definitely not do it again. I think I would spend my time travelling, learning languages, and spending more time with family and friends. On the last discussion of Dalrock’s someone said that they took up flying as a hobby after they divorced. Although I’m a big fan of Roissy’s work, I don’t think I could ever pursue the PUA lifestyle because I don’t want to purposely live in sin 24/7. The MGTOW seem to get a bad rap. I’m curious what others think of that group. Thanks for any input.
Vox Day was my intro to the manosphere. A harsh way to begin, perhaps, but brutally honest.
I like his idea of black knighting as a means of crashing the system.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/black-knights.html
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/a-black-knight-in-action.html
I would also offer the suggestion that very few, if any, go MGTOW forever. The manosphere is chock full of men in transitory states of mind all of them coming to a final, painful, rejection of untruths. I find accepted intellectual chaos to be humanity’s best hope for a physical peace.
“Here’s my generalizations about the Manosphere
If you’re not here, then you might be a pussy.
If you don’t understand it, then you’re probably a pussy.
If you got a problem with it, then you’re definitely a pussy.
And if insulting feminism is the new heresy then…
This is a what a heretic looks like.”
Epic post by Mark Minter …
After my frivorce, I am now a MGHOW. But I’ll still read Roissy and his like because I still have to deal with women every day, and some of their stuff helps to sift through the bullshit.
We all benefit from each other, especially on some of the more heated issues. Being a Christian, I always read opinions from “the other side”. In this day and age, truth is a rare and often convoluted treasure (sadly, too often in Christian circles). All sides must be taken in and then processed. With no one immediately around me to talk manosphere shop with in person, I’m really grateful that the internet can be used for something useful and bring us all together to hash this stuff out.
Dalrock, post on, good sir, and keep the fires fueled.
The Manosphere was created when dregs like Roissy, Ferdinand and Koanic Soul; opportunists like Athol Kay and Rollo; and kooks like Hawaiian Libertarian bought into the MRM. Let us not forget the unsung heroes:
I’ll certainly take the kook label with bemused acceptance (I’ve been called far worse, lozlzozol)….but you’re wrong about the rest of this, HKU.
The Manosphere was NOT “created” by Roissy or Ferdinand or Bill Price.
It arose from the comment threads of Roissy in D.C. circa 2009. Roissy’s posts where the springboard for the convergence, but he was not the “Father” or “Creator.” Rather, I’d say he was the inspiration. The people he drew to his blog were members of all 3 groups Dalrock identifies in this post.
In those bad old days, there wasn’t all these blogs. You just went to Roissy in D.C. and you could find Ferdinand, Welmer, Novaseeker, Whiskey, and a whole host of other commenters who were regulars in the comment threads of Roissy in D.C. before they went on to start their own blogs/magazines/group efforts. When I first discovered Roissy, I did not want to deal with the regular femtard invasions he was getting, so I did all my commenting over there as “Dave from Hawaii” and never linked to my own blog.
I started my blog in 2007 as a MRM blog, 2 years before the “Manosphere” emerged. I “bought into the MRM” before the Manosphere existed, and before I ever heard of Roissy in D.C.
Let us not forget the unsung heroes:
Bernard Chapin
Barbarrossaaaa
ManWomanMyth
ThugticianWisdom
Zed the Zen Priest
Yes, lets not. You forgot a few here:
Angry Harry
Rob Fedders
Eternal Bachelor
Fred X
Captain Zarmband
Darren from CoolTools4Men
Pook
Mirror of the Soul
Philalethes
An Irishman Against Feminism
The Black Misogynist
Outcast Superstar (always good to see him make an appearance ’round these parts)
Field Marshall Watkins
Christopher in Oregon
Anonymous Age 66 (I remember first reading his commentary when he was that age…)
These were the first wave of Men’s Rights AWARENESS blogs/bloggers/commenters that arose in 2005-2007.
Also, when you read the works of Pook and Mirror of the Soul, you soon realize that they were indeed ahead of their time. Their collective works encompass almost all of the things that are being discussed as “newly” discovered “red pill” knowledge here in the manosphere 2013. Self improvement, masculine frame, unapologetic masculinity, how “game” applies to any and all male/female relationships.
Finally, to diss Athol Kay is to ignore his contributions to the sphere. Go read his MMSL forums and see how much good work the man has done in helping marriage and family. In this regard, Athol and Dalrock have done far more to help men realize their goals of successful marriages and raising families in today’s fem-fucked society than all of the combined “Activism” of the MRM and their efforts to reform the legal system.
There’s one thing I’ve developed a great distaste of, and it’s all of the infighting and ad hominem criticisms amongst various folks the come here, like this bitter sounding, asshole type commentary you’ve dropped here, HKU.
I think Novaseeker puts it best….this is a clearinghouse for ideas. Many folks have contributed many great ideas to the discussions found in these fringes of teh Interwebz. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it.
Go your own way. Start your own blog and do it how you think it’s supposed to be done.
But to diss others who came before, or who are contributing now doesn’t gain you any higher status amongst the virtual hierarchy. It just makes you look like an asshole.
Peace out.
Manosphere: Where Men don’t have to check their dicks at the door when they discuss social, sexual and political ideas.
I am relatively new to the manosphere (about 9 months), and I actively read blogs from all three camps.
I think Cane Caldo put it best when he said all of this is an art..as much as it is a science. The art is striving to balance the truths from each of the three camps to live a manly life well lived.
@Pavetack:
You submitted:
““The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay in, the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them. One might as well try to promote basketball skills by distributing expensive sneakers.””
EXACTLY CORRECT!
@Keoni
Actually Roissy D.C came late to the party
Mystery, Tyler Durden, David Deangelo, Ross Jefferies, Shark, Juggler, etc., were all there years before Roissy D.C came onto the scene & stated pretty much what Roissy was saying, years before him
Even back then Roissy D.C was basically saying what PUA’s have been saying for years prior to Roissy
Roissy basically watered down PUA for the masses, which is why I never really liked Roissy
He shouldve stuck to Hard-Core Game & Hard-Core Red Pill
This is also why Ferdinand Bardameua’s In Mala Fide, imploded
Hard-core game, attracts hard core red pill men
Veering into MRA topics, attracts hordes of pissed off regular men … who cant handle the hard core issues of the red pill
Men need to get laid, & men have a right to bang hot chicks, this is something MRA’s dont get
It arose from the comment threads of Roissy in D.C. circa 2009. Roissy’s posts where the springboard for the convergence, but he was not the “Father” or “Creator.” Rather, I’d say he was the inspiration. The people he drew to his blog were members of all 3 groups Dalrock identifies in this post.
In those bad old days, there wasn’t all these blogs. You just went to Roissy in D.C.
Exactly. And then came the spinoffs, which we were first calling the Roissysphere, and which later became the manosphere. But what we know as the manosphere (not MRAs and so on, but this loose constellation of blogs and so on) started there at Roissy’s blog in the late noughts.
Even back then Roissy D.C was basically saying what PUA’s have been saying for years prior to Roissy
Roissy basically watered down PUA for the masses, which is why I never really liked Roissy
He shouldve stuck to Hard-Core Game & Hard-Core Red Pill
This is also why Ferdinand Bardameua’s In Mala Fide, imploded
Hard-core game, attracts hard core red pill men
Veering into MRA topics, attracts hordes of pissed off regular men … who cant handle the hard core issues of the red pill
See, the thing is that his social commentary which he attached to his gaming blog is what made it the hub of what became the manosphere. Without that he would have been another game blogger, and a late one as you say. The social commentaries, connecting Game with larger social/political/cultural issues, is what made Roissy what it was, and is what gave birth to the manosphere. The manosphere would never have happened in terms of a collection of blogs discussing the social situation in a red pill way, if Roissy had been merely another pick-up blog.
This is an excellent summary, and in years to come it will be a point of reference whenever someone arrives here and accuses us of immorality etc.
The whole English-speaking world is infected with misandry, but the USA has an especially bad case of the disease, most notably in its divorce laws. It is probably not possible to cure the disease completely, because we live in democratic countries where women form a majority, but it must be possible to remove the worst excesses.
It is not likely that Manosphere views will cross over to the MSM; however, simply making the knowledge available allows more and more men (and some women) to take the Red Pill. The result will be subtle changes in the things that are thinkable and speakable, until eventually the majority realise that the MSM is serving them a diet of lies.
@JT
There is an option you have not listed:
(4a) Make Red Pill knowledge freely available to anyone who looks for it, and save the world, one soul at a time.
Treat outsiders and objectors (except outright trolls) with tireless patience. We don’t want to be inward-looking, or only interested in people who reinforce our own views – take a look at radfem blogs to see how that turns out.
ar10308
AR,
The basic assumptions I’m talking about include the ideas of Hypergamy and the Alpha/Beta dichotomy.
Mmm…dunno about that. Seems to me that one can encounter traditionalist men on a regular basis who wander in to the ‘sphere with a bad case of pedestalism, and who thus absolutely reject the notion of hypergamy (once it’s explained to them, of course). And there are still men who reject the notion of applied psychology – Game – and the whole set of greek letters that go with it.
I’m inclined to point back to the OP – what we men in the ‘sphere have in common is a more or less clear view that some thing is wrong with civilization, and feminism is a big part of that. Perhaps another common premise is one that I push a lot: men and women are different, and women are not just “men who can have babies”. That idea is inherently subversive to 2nd stage and 3rd stage feminism. I hope that it is one of the shared assumptions of the mano-androsphere.
Actually Roissy D.C came late to the party
Certainly Mack. I read plenty of the PUA game blogs/forums before I discovered Roissy as well – The Reality Method, Uzem and Luzem and all of David DeAngelo’s early stuff.
What I’m saying is that Roissy was the first to start mixing up all these issues – game/feminism/ declining civilization etc., which started garnering an expanded audience.
It was his comment section that eventually spawned all these other blogs that became collectively known as “the manosphere.” Before that phrase was coined, most referred to it as the “Roissysphere.”
All I’m trying to say here is this: Roissy’s a great writer with a penchant for brilliant prose. Phrasing ugly truths with beautiful phrasing. But it was his comment section during that era, and all those who contributed to those discussions that really gave birth to this “manosphere” that pretty much covers the 3 areas Dalrock highlights here.
Before Roissy’s comment section mixed it all up, the three spheres where largely separate and did not interact or refer to each other much at all.
From my perspective, I’ve learned a great deal from all aspects. People get invested in some sort of virtual turf war, and spend more time attacking the other areas.
To my way of thinking, this is counter-productive and plays into the hands of those who have already divided and conquered us all in the first place.
Dissing Rollo, or Athol, or Roissy as HKU did here, does nothing to advance any other aspect of the manosphere.
If there’s one thing to admire about the manosphere, it’s this: the so-called “rockstars” or “big names” got there through their own merit in writing and blogging and attracting regular readers through their own hard work. I see guys like HKU do drive-by insults and denunciations of various bloggers all the time, and it’s annoying as fuck.
You think Roissy, Rollo and Roosh suck? That Athol just “re-packaged” someone else’s shit for a quick buck?
Great. We’re all entitled to our own opinions. But to come to a thread like this, at one of the more highly visible and read blogs and make such pronouncements reeks of jealousy, bitterness and a pathetic attempt at trying to AMOG the manosphere. *yawn*
That’s my understanding too. I’ve never really been part of the MRA, but my impression of them is that their focus is on using the legal/political system to enforce fairness for men. For instance, the current divorce system is unfair to men; a fair system would split custody and support 50/50. As you point out, they’ve been waging this fight since the 1970s, and pretty much losing every step of the way. So some men decided there was no hope of getting a fair system, therefore they aren’t willing to be married, hence MGTOW.
My problem with their goal, and I think others in the “traditional manosphere” camp that Dalrock describes would agree, is that 50/50 isn’t a solution. You can’t have 50/50 egalitarianism in a society for the same reasons you can’t have it in a healthy relationship. Using the feminist laws to get half the power back for men — if such a thing were even possible — isn’t going to help much. When we had a healthy society, we didn’t have any such fairness; we had men in charge. That’s what has to happen again if we’re going to have healthy families and communities, and pushing for egalitarianism won’t get that — it may even work against it.
My first exposure to anything you might call the manosphere was the Usenet group alt.seduction.fast and Ross Jeffries’s Speed Seduction in the mid 1990’s. It was pretty much all about game techniques then. Ross was big on NLP and palm reading and fairly specific ways of building rapport with women, but there were a lot of guys just trying stuff and reporting back on what worked. Some guys were just trying to get a date, any date, while other guys were trying to see how fast they could get a woman from hello to the f-close (k-close is “kiss close,” meaning the encounter closes with a kiss, so you can probably figure out what f-close is). Like anthropologists studying a strange species in the wild, they discovered some neat stuff, like the venue change: if you meet a woman for a drink at one place and then suggest that you go to a second place, it speeds up the process because she sort of feels like you’ve been on two dates already.
I’m sure there was some overlap between these guys and the MRAs, but these guys were definitely not MGTOW (though some certainly weren’t into marriage). When the web came along, things gradually moved there, and a new generation of game experts came along whose marketing skills sometimes rivaled or exceeded their game knowledge. But they continued the study of women and their reactions to men. After a while, it seems like the techniques of game became fairly settled, and some men started going deeper: why does this stuff work; is it biology, training, or what? Did our grandfathers have to do this stuff too, or have women changed? If the latter, why, and can they be fixed? Does it work on all women, or just the subset that hang out in bars and coffee shops? What’s it all about?
At some point, enough Christian men looked past the PUA stuff and got involved to form a critical mass of their own, and started discussing these topics from a Christian, scriptural perspective. My first inkling that this was possible was listening to a very traditional Catholic priest give a sermon about the proper roles of husband and wife. He explained how the sins of Adam and Eve are passed down to us through Original Sin: women struggle with submission because Eve usurped Adam’s authority, and men are tempted abdicate their authority because Adam let Eve lead him. He came to the same conclusions that I’d been hearing from evo-psych game guys for several years, but with a completely biblical, Traditional grounding. I realized then that there didn’t have to be a conflict between my faith and what I knew about male/female dynamics. Somewhere along the line that led to blogs like this one.
It’s been an interesting ride. I went through the usual phases most guys do, I guess. For a while I decided American women were beyond hope and looked seriously into foreign brides, but the high expense kept me from getting too far into it. For a while I experimented with game and gloried in how well it really does work, before realizing lots of dates might be better than none, but they don’t offer long-term contentment. Now I’ve pretty much settled into wanting a wife, but not being willing to lower my standards, which 99% of women would find ridiculously chauvinistic (she can’t have a smart phone, for instance). So there’s a good chance I won’t find one, but I don’t consider that MGTOW — I think MGTOW refers to guys who have rejected women (or at least marriage) for good.
You think Roissy, Rollo and Roosh suck? That Athol just “re-packaged” someone else’s shit for a quick buck?
Those are the three blogs I read daily (ROK, Heartiste and Rational Male) besides this one. They’re first rate.
I don’t really follow Athol, though if I were trying to play the marriage game he’d be a daily read too. Whoever wants to say he “repackaged” stuff might have a point, in that he seems read a lot of old-school traditional advice through a unique lens that young bros (and young sisters too) will find palatable and “hip”. I enjoyed his book and think he plays a good role in keeping the ideal alive.
We all have our critics and they’re necessary. Those who think these old school playas suck should, as was previously encouraged, start a new blog and show the old masters how things are done. There should be lots more of these blogs, with more viewpoints, and not less of them.
Regards, Boxer
A post-feminist man who is sexually-experienced, accomplished, interesting, independent, successful, confident, financially-secure and in reasonable shape–won’t marry, support, or have a ‘long-term relationship’ with post frivorce/promiscous woman, although he may have sex with her, briefly.
At this juncture, little Miss ‘non-ghetto’ African-American … Miss Lotus Flower of Asia … Mei-Mei from Southeast Asia … Fujiko from Japan … Miss Desi India … an Ebony-skinned, English-speaking Kenya, Uganda or Angola beauty … the exotic & dark lady of the Caribbean Islands … Miss Latina … and others, having performed their ‘vetting,’ will be waiting, often in droves, to compete for and snap up this man-treasure.
Roissy was a lot like Rush Limbaugh. Rush wasn’t the first conservative commentator, or even the first one on the radio. But he packaged it in a way that was a lot of fun, and he came on the scene at the perfect time, right when conservatives were in the doldrums of the post-Reagan era, chafing from Bush’s tax increase and Clinton’s election, looking for someone to provide an alternate viewpoint to the increasingly liberal mainstream media. He was in the right place at the right time with the right product.
Roissy is the same way: he came on the scene when the blogosphere in general was exploding and people were congregating to like-minded blogs in large numbers, and the software made it easy for them to comment to their hearts’ content for the first time. And he made it fun, mixing salty language with serious discussion of theory. Not much new, that’s true, but the right package at the right time.
What about the Game by Neil Strauss? That’s what got me interested.
Roissy is the same way: he came on the scene when the blogosphere in general was exploding and people were congregating to like-minded blogs in large numbers, and the software made it easy for them to comment to their hearts’ content for the first time. And he made it fun, mixing salty language with serious discussion of theory. Not much new, that’s true, but the right package at the right time.
Yes, he was in the right place at the right time, I agree.
But what made his place special, and what made it attract so many very widely diverse people, was that he pulled together (1) evo-psych/Game/technique with (2) fairly reactionary social commentary about feminism, race, government, society and so on. Part (2) is what drew in many, many people who otherwise would never go to a pure game blog. In turn, it exposed these people to Game. These people then went back to where they came from and cross-pollinated ideas, and it spread like a super virus.
The key was drawing these two things together. It created some kind of critical reaction.
I remember there were people who would never spend much time at all at a pure PUA site — like Anakin Niceguy, who no longer blogs (at least not under that name, dunno), and Amir fron singlemind, who are very strict Christians morally, but could not deny the truth of what Roissy was writing about *other* things, which made them somewhat more open to Game in at least some of its aspects. This was a revolution, because it drew in people who were beyond the amoral. It drew in all kinds of people, and that eventually led to an explosion of diverse perspectives, expressed in this constellation of blogs, which all in some way related to the ideas that they found on Roissy’s blog, which were a mix of game and social commentary. It was kind of the perfect storm, really.
empathologism says:
May 15, 2013 at 2:24 pm
“Instead of a group hug when I like the approach that guy took in the movie The Replacements. He’d scream and run across the field and tackle Keanu Reeves violently when he was pleased. It makes the bond stronger, cements the agreement better. I know people have envisioned tackling GBFM similarly…..am I right?”
Only after putting on a whole-body genuine porcupine suit that’s freshly been sprayed with either brine or formic acid. CrappyTVforPoufters is an attention whore who daily pees all over Dalrock’s good site with meaningless gibberish that is chaff at best. I hope Dalrock snaps out of this bizarre tolerance of the pointless, and tells CTCFP to either drop the weirdness (e.g., intentional gibberish), or hits the road. (Re Dalrock’s saying that CTVFP is “an acquired tast”, so is coprophagy; I don’t expect to ever have either.)
I was thinking earlier this evening that this generation of Game bloggers are like Galileo and Descartes. They are seeing new truths but there are a lot of unanswered conundrums in their work. There will be many corrections to come in future generations. Roissy in particular, with his defiant personality reminds me of Galileo.
But then, they’re not really discovering new knowledge, but REDISCOVERING truths lost to civilizational rot. So maybe they’re more like Thon Taddeo Pfardentrott from A Canticle for Leibowitz.
JT says:
“May 15, 2013 at 1:00 pm
(1) Man up and marry those sluts (Blue Pill)
(2) Build a life of hedonism (PUA)
(3) Forsake civilization (MGTOW)
(4) Be patient and pray (Traditional)
(5) Try to change the system from within (MRA)
(1) is untenable, (2) is unsatisfying, (3) is suicide, (4) is inaction, (5) is futile.
These seem like poor choices.”
YES! YE LEFT OUT #6!lzozooz
(6) LEAD A RENAISSANCE IN THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN!!!
READ THE GREAT BOOKS OF YOUR FATHERSZ
FOLLOW THEIR HIGHER IDEALS, ACT ON PRINIPLE, PEN POETRY SERVING THE EXALTED SPIRIT, ACT LIKE ACHILLES, MOSES, ODYSSEUS, SOCRATES, SENECA, AND CHRIST
AND YE SHALL FIND YER SALVATION
AND EXALT A
NEW NATION!!!
Hi all 🙂 My name is Hannah. I was so pleased to have been introduced to Dalrock by my cousin recently – after a discussion we had on the wave of matriachal madness that is sweeping through the church like a plague.
It is indeed refreshing to read that there is discernment out there.
I grew up with a radically anti-feminist, anti-democracy, anti-equality father, so what I’ve read so far from your blog and others such as Deti’s fantastic ‘Advice to a Daughter about Boys’ is not at all shocking… rather it is like a breath of fresh air 🙂
I have picked through rubbish teachings such as ‘Why Not Women’ by Loren Cunningham, and ‘Discovering the Mind of a Woman’ by Ken Nair http://www.lifepartnerschristianministries.com/dmow.html trying to explain to friends the error in the post-feminist Christian teaching.
The really sad thing about these books is they’re both highly influential among Christians, and they’re both written by men!
Women can’t give away what they don’t have, but the men have become so emasculated that they’re handing over their God-given leadership. What a tragedy.
I have married a man who, like my father, has the courage to live as a man as God created him. (the old adage is true guys, so remember YOU are the type of man your daughter will choose!) My husband is my protector. I am safe in his arms. For this I am eternally grateful!
Once I had a boss who met my husband (boyfriend at the time) and straight away said to me, I like your man but I’d never want to meet him in a dark alleyway!
(My internal dialogue: I’m glad to hear your thoughts Mr Boss man, because now you know it’s in your best interest to treat me well 🙂 After reading a little on the descriptions of types of men… I would say my husband is most definitely a Sigma)
My husband was recently given this book of Ken Nair’s by well meaning friends who have been ‘freed’ by the teachings… it’s such a twisted perversion of what scripture really says – you’d hardly believe it! I’m so grateful that my husband won’t be bullied into reading anything people say he ‘needs’ to read! His natural masculinity is not in jeopardy because he’s not allowing himself to be brainwashed.
The equality message is obvious in the ugly form of feminism and in liberal tv shows that promote the lie.
It is somewhat more subtle under the guise of conservative Christianity. But it is ugly nonetheless.
Ken Nair asks men ‘How do you plan on submitting to your wife’???! (yes apparently he reads his bible)
He goes on to ‘explain’ that Jesus is the husband of the church… and HE submitted as an example to you husbands. What the??!
Tell me that’s not twisting the meaning of Jesus submitting to the Father’s will.
He also undoes the Husbands being Head…. Ken Nair ‘explains’ in group conferences with much female support (go figure) that it would be a DISASTER to submit to a man that doesn’t have a clue what is going on.
He asks ‘Is a woman going to honour a husband that doesn’t have a clue? Yeah right!’ (much laughter by the audience…. I’m guessing sadly forced laughter by the men)
What difference does it make if the husband doesn’t have a clue?! Does that release a wife from honouring her covenant???
Better for a ship to be sailing in the wrong direction for a time than for it to be sunk by two captains tearing apart.
Ken Nair also says that the word ‘helper/helpmeet’ in the Bible actually, through ancient Hebrew pictures means ‘revealer of sin’!
He says that God knew that Adam will walk out of relationship with God, so He made for him a ‘revealer of your enemy’
Ken says that the woman cannot help herself…. she must be affected by her husband. She has no choice!!! (No free-will for a woman?! And they say that Fundamentalist Christianity is oppresses and degrading! The irony.)
He misses all scripture that teaches otherwise. There is no mention of husbands being won over by a meek and quiet spirit.
If your wife in contentious, complaining, discontented…. it’s YOUR fault!!! Why? You’re not exampling Christ-likeness to her!!!!
Teaching like Ken Nair’s puts the blame squarely at the foot of the men.. and suggests that women are spiritually superior. This puts women in charge. One moral failure on a man’s part, and he is forever at the mercy of his wife who may remember she doesn’t FEEL loved because of blah blah blah.
…:) he he he this reminds me of Harry Enfield, an English skit show I used to watch… there was a skit where there’d be some huge accident and the paramedics would rush up to the victim who’d recall what happened. Then the paramedic would say, ‘ok, I hear what you’re saying and what I hear is WAA WAA WAA!’ 🙂
One of my favourite quotes: ‘I don’t trust my inner feelings, inner feelings come and go. (Leonard Cohen)
This is what is so amazing about men… they are rational and logical and can PROCESS instead of trusting and acting out on emotions. My husband is my rock for precisely this reason. I do not want him losing his frame just because I am emotional! My husband helps me process and supress the desire to ACT on my feelings.
Meanwhile, back to Ken Nair for a moment…. he asks guys who’s the more emotional in their marriage… guys say their wife by far. Ken asks how much more, guys answer 90%. So Ken presumes: so if your wife is 90% more emotionally functioning than you, then you’re showing a 90% deficiency of being like Christ’????!!!! This is based on his teaching that God is emotional because He created emotions.
Oh dear, it would be laughable if it weren’t being taken seriously by so many couples. Any issue in the home is now the MAN’s fault… even a woman’s sinning!!! Read it and discern for yourselves what lies are being eaten up at this present time.
This is why I was so pleased to read your writings Dalrock…. because you are being brave enough to cry out in the wilderness. You are courageous and sticking your head up even though it’s likely to be shot down. Good for you, and good for the men who take heed.
I read one of your well-written posts about the Reframing of Christian Marriage, and there was one section (The Wife Must Love Her Husband) left deliberately blank in the comparison between what the Bible says and what Modern Christianity says.
This may or may not be relevant to your research:
Ken Nair, author of ‘Understanding Your Wife’ says, among many other things, that a woman is never commanded to ‘love’ her husband in the bible! he then concedes it says exactly that in Titus 2, but goes on to ‘inform’ us through ancient Hebrew pictures that this variety of love is the phileo kind… the brotherly kind of love that would enable us to let our husbands know to xyz when their fly is undone…. his words!
I’m thinking something….
What if the man/woman scenario hasn’t changed so much since creation and the fall?
‘Hi honey, I’ve just spent time with the devil… and HE says blah blah blah…….oh and it tastes good too you know you really ought to try it!’
(yes women fall for flattering lies most easily!)
Perhaps unity in marriage is the only preventable way of safeguarding a woman from the devil’s lies?
Perhaps the devil knows this, so uses feminism to force the guys to hand over their God-given authority? Willingly!!!
How does unity come from two people joined in holy matrimony? Through the outworking of the God ordained order. Husband as leader, Wife in submission.
An example of this outworking….. wife says ‘Hi honey, I’ve just spent time reading Ken Nair’s book…. and HE says blah blah blah….. oh and it makes SO much sense to me… you really ought to read it, watch it, go to the seminar, buy the books, pass it onto your friends!’
Husband says – ‘No my dear, that Ken Nair is misusing verses of the Bible to promote a post-feminist idea creating a matriachal society based on the notion that you are spiritually superior to me which is nonesense so no I will not be reading it and nor will you.’ …. or ‘No wife, that book is a load of crap – throw it in the fire!’
There is talk in the emergent church movement that we have ‘come a long way’, which helps to push the equality agenda. Well yes we might have come a long way, but what a sad journey we’ve been taking.
I went to a wedding where the mother of the bride read out a list of 10 tips for married wife from the 1950’s… this was met with such laughter and derision… I was deeply saddened. We are so ignorant that we despise good advice. We call evil good and good evil.
In brief – the 10 things included
Have dinner ready
Prepare yourself for his arrival (looks)
Clear away the clutter
Prepare the children
Minimise the noise
Don’t greet him with complaints
Make him comfortable
Listen to him
Make the evening his (esteeming the other higher than yourself – who’d have thought of that?!)
The goal: Try to make your home a place of peace and order where your husband can relax.
This is considered archaic and misguided at best, and abusive misogyny by many….
Can we be so foolish to throw away advice such as this in disgust in the name of equality?
What a broken world we live in.
Imagine a home where these 10 steps are in place – peace and harmony abide in love by the wife’s conscious choice to defer to her husband. The husband knows he is respected and honored in his own home, and finds contentment in his duty. His position in society and in his family is secure and he is able to go about life knowing that he is in charge.
He is also thankfully missing the problem of a continual drip drip drip in his own home!
I’ve never come across some of the terminology on your site – game is a very new word (quite possibly not concept!) to me. But after a little reading it comes as no surprise that such characters as Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation and Mad Men’s Don Draper are appealing to both myself and my husband 🙂
Who would like Don Draper if he’s seen begging his now overweight, depressed and frumpy ex-wife to come back to him?! Not I!
Fast forward to where the show is taking us through the sixties and beyond and I can only imagine we’ll have to see Don ‘enlightened’ or emasculated like the rest of mankind.
Look where the sexual revolution, women’s rights and equality have taken us in such a short time… tragic.
A woman succeeding in a male’s role will displace men and she will only ever be seen as a poor excuse of a man.
A man attempting to succeed in the horror of today’s feminism will only ever be seen as a poor excuse of a woman. (thereby rendering him useless.) Either way, traditional patriachy is being attacked.
Women strive for equality because it’s not theirs. Men giving away what IS theirs is creating chaos.
‘All this talk about equality. The only thing people really have in common is that they are all going to die.’ Bob Dylan
No wonder this world is becoming homosexual.
I was given a fantastic example of patriarchy in my childhood, and all things being equal, I would have stayed away from the lie of feminism my whole life. But things happened to me that derail a girl. I then went on to make a complete mess of my life for the next decade. God revealed Himself to me and I repented at 22, but we still must bear consequences for our actions. Unless you are actively anti-feminism, it’s washing over you constantly and indiscriminately. I have used lessons from my deep regrets to warn girls and other women. It is only through the grace of God that I’ve been able to speak on Submission, Purity, Modesty and Honouring your Father and Mother. Of course these subjects are wildly popular
My husband and I go to a church that thankfully upholds the early church teaching of not permitting women to teach men.
I am content to speak with women about these topics if men here feel I am trying to teach them. This is certainly not my intention at all – but I understand if my presence seems inappropriate. I cannot tell you how relieved I am to come across the manosphere! I will not give up hope for the next generation!
In any case, perhaps I, like every other homeschooling mum, should start a blog too… one that focuses on Lost Patriarchy rather than idolising my ‘brilliant and beautiful’ children
I apologise for the incredibly long post (I am very new to this!) – I really just want to encourage you men to keep up the fight, and don’t grow weary doing good.
This reminds me of Esther – King Ahasuerus is disobeyed by his wife Queen Vashti who refuses to obey the King’s request that she come to him so he can show everyone how beautiful she is. What I’ve found here at Dalrock is examples of the wise men who understood the times and gave the king this advice:
“Queen Vashti has not only wronged the king, but also all the princes, and all the people who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. 17 For the queen’s behavior will become known to all women, so that they will despise their husbands in their eyes, when they report, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in before him, but she did not come.’ 18 This very day the noble ladies of Persia and Media will say to all the king’s officials that they have heard of the behavior of the queen. Thus there will be excessive contempt and wrath.
I remember reading an advice column written by a male relationship psychologist a year or so ago that suggested the worst thing to do with a ‘leader’ type husband (mine) was to submit to them!!!
How ludicrous, how anti-God, and what a dreadful outcome to the relationship of the woman that follows such worldly advice.
Any man can be the one to tame his wife (or daughter) if he doesn’t allow today’s society to dictate him otherwise.
Blessings in Yeshua,
Hannah
@Keoni & Nova
I fully agree Roissy is an excellent writer
What I’m trying to say, his expounding game into social commentary as discourse for social observation, wasnt the right direction for the emerging MRA, mens socio-economic issues & rights
Game & PUA are defined by dark triad, by combining socio-bioeconomics, you no longer have a pure understanding of the necessity of dark triad & the brutal levels of confidence & alpha required in game or PUA
You cannot combine game with economics, or game with sociobiology & expect the emerging fields of economics for men, or sociobiology for men, to evolve
Economics for men in particular has to evolve independantly of game
The MRA movement & the sociobiology movement of mens issues, all should have evolved independantly
What we should have had, were sites specialised & expert to mens economics, & sites specialised & dedicated to mens socio-economics & socio-biology & mens rights
For example, Dalrock & Athol Kay if they empasised the IMPORTANCE of dark triad game & the extremely high levels of confidence required to make a marriage work, their blogs would have a much higher success rate of marriages & relationships turned around
By combining the movements & issues, which shouldve specialised in mens economics etc., the manosphere wont survive the women & manginas, precisely because theres no focus on the core issues
As a result we have only one Captain Capitalism, instead of hundreds of captain capitalisms
& one Athol Kay, instead of hundreds of athol kays
The vast majority of sites, have no focus or speciality in mens issues, as they have no core issues or expertise to focus around
@Mack —
From my perspective, the cross-pollinization is only a benefit.
We are not at anything close to a critical mass of people that would support hundreds of Athols, hundreds of Cappy Caps, hundreds of Roissys, as talented and so on. Not even remotely close to that scale now.
The way I conceive of this evolution is that there was a critical reaction at Roissy’s that formed a kind of celestial explosion, and there are tendrils of that which point in different directions. That’s the stage we are at now. It’s early. The key is that the tendrils are all linked together and cross-pollinating intellectual DNA at the moment. This strengthens all of them. As this thing grows, the tendrils will become deeper and more specialized, but the core, and critical, absolutely critical, advantage of having a shared, common source, and a shared baseline upon which they agree — which would never have happened if they had evolved independently of each other (and such independent evolution likely would never have been possible without a critical mass event, really).
I understand what you are suggesting, but (1) in my opinion it is very inferior to having various branches developing together in a loose alliance as compared with developing independently of each other and (2) even if I were wrong about (1), there is nothing like the critical mass of people required to do what you are suggesting in this corner of the internet — and there would not be more of them if things had developed independently, either.
“Who am us, anyway?”
– The Firesign Theatre, from How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When You’re Not Anywhere At All?
The “manosphere” is nothing but a horribly pretentious disinformation/propaganda initiative.
The manospherians are for the most part it’s useful morons (-kinda like neutrons, only moreso). Ha!!
I’m new here so I don’t know anything but I think the Mansphere would be cool if it had meetup groups.
Good thread Dalrock. And you guessed right about setting off another Constitutional Convention in the comments. An old observer like me can appreciate what you are doing to save Christian marriage. But I still get the most enjoyment from Roissy, Roosh and Krauser pick up stories. And, like Minter said, HKU is a pussy.
@shinzaemon: A fan of The 13 Assassins, are we?
Hey Dalrock, I see now how ridiculously long my reply is! I won’t be at all offended if you choose to omit it from this post 🙂
Earl writes, “Atheists and Christians can come together over this thing.”
Here here!
On JT and Ras Al Ghul’s formulation, two remarks:
First – “traditional / Christian” – being #4 in the formulation – as concerns Earl’s note: there is no need to be exclusive. There are reasons for Christians to be on the same page, but there are things they hold in common with people of a secular bent. I think Catholic scholasticism has long had a good sense of this – though old style Thomism won’t go far enough. A new Suma is required. A willingness to learn the language of non-Christians who share your values may be a single, decisive strategy, without which all else may fail.
But to add heft to the point: the Roman Empire survived centuries before it was Christian. Imperial China survived millenia without being Christian. That IS NOT saying they were successful because they weren’t Christian – but it is saying that Christianity is one form among several of successful social enterprises and we can generalize that enterprise to include non-Christians.
Second – still on JT and Ras Al Ghul’s formulation – there is little reason in my mind to think that #4 and #5 are mutually exclusive, in Ras Al Ghul’s more colorful form:
4) Preserve a way to restore a better functioning world after the collapse
5) Fight evil by using its own arbitrary rules to hasten its destruction.
Again – non-Christian civilizations sometimes survive and thrive for generations. Combine prayer with the rules – and, you know: not all are arbitrary. A “feminine” and “masculine” imperative imply there are underlying genetic agendas. These are not arbitrary, though the ways that they intersect with conscious Human Imperative – with agency – that may be. Ours is to learn how to subordinate feminine and masculine gene propagation systems to the agency of human values. That is not arbitrary.
In the process of trying to cohere the civilization of their own era ancient thinkers attacked the problem of civilization and formed schools of thought. Especially concerned with the cohesiveness of civilization – being as he was the emperor, Marcus Aurelius endowed chairs of these schools.
Plato’s Academy – a metamystical system
Aristotle’s Lycaeum – a rational, metaphysical system
Epicurus’s Garden – being centered on the individual this came to be known as hedonism, but in its day was focused on communities of men and women who eschewed politics
Zeno’s Porch – the stoic school
We also saw schools of skepticism, sophism and cynicism all flourish.
It seems,a lot of repeating themes in the human problem.
I found a channel on Youtube that claims to discuss “Philosophy, Science and Christianity.” One of the series is a debate between the owners of the channel, a young woman and her father. “Egalitarianism vs Complementarianism.”
As you might expect, the woman takes the position Dalrock has called “feminist rebellion.”
She argues that, “…a wife does not have to submit to her husband to a greater extent than a husband to a wife..” and that “..in terms of authority, leadership, or decision-making, she is no more restricted or forbidden from doing certain things related to these than her husband is.”
I haven’t watched the entire thing, since as an atheist I am not equipped to evaluate the Biblical foundations the debate supposedly rests upon, but some here may find it of interest.
Here’s a link to the first part of the series.
I see the manosphere as the red pill internet for men. Manosphere red pillers are usually PUA or MGTOW/MRA or Tradionalist based on age, marital status, religion, and how old they were when they took the red pill.
PUAs are usually young (teens to early 30s). They see an all-you-can-eat slut buffet then binge until they can handle no more. They took the red pill early and often, and they seek to maintain their high SROI (Slut Return on Investment) using game as the key. Rome is burning; so let’s roast marshmallows.
MGTOWs are usually older (30s plus). They got hammered by hypergamy or frivorce before they discovered the red pill. Or they are older PUAs tiring of the game and cognizant of the risks of manning up. MGTOWs may expat or go ghost. They are engaged in risk avoidance and denying the enemy sanctuary and resources. Most are not celibate but they starve the beast as best they can.
Traditionalists are usually older (35 plus) or married or both. Most are Judeo-Christian. They have taken the red pill and washed it down with scotch. Although they are fully aware of the high risks and meager rewards of marriage, they believe that God’s mandate to go forth and be fruitful, and the civilizing effects of marriage, are worth fighting for, even at the risk of sacrificing themselves.
Most of us are a blend of at least two of the above-mentioned archetypes. And we are almost all MRA to varying degrees (if you are red pill, you hate VAWA).
Blue pillers who wish to learn more should read the archives and peruse the blogs in the blogroll.
we need a book.
I don’ think the dividing lines within the Manosphere are ideological. They are rather dependent on one’s social condition and the mindset that results from it. It’s easy to categorize Manosphere members accordingly.
A) Single men not planning to marry. They tend to gravitate towards PUA or MGTOW depending on how fed up they are by women’s never-ending BS. If you had enough of women’s BS, you go your own way. If not, you learn Game, basically. Some of those who choose Game eventually expatriate. As far as I can see, what they generally don’t do is become an MRA or turn towards tradcon-ism. They just don’t see the point. As far as they’re concerned, it’s a waste of time because this civilization is destined for demise. They are a large segment of the Manosphere, which is good, because they’re a smart and calculating bunch.
B) Single men planning to marry. Their main interest is LTR Game, expatriation and, to a lesser extent, tradcon-ism. Any other kind of stuff doesn’t interest them. They want to have a stake in the future of society.
There’s a real dividing line between A and B. There’s not much to do about it so it’s best to simply accept it.
C) Married men. Well, these guys are basically screwed. They don’t have the same options and interests in life as either A or B. Their life is one of drudgery and attempts at practising LTR Game so as to avoid divorce rape. They have a stake in the future because..well, they don’t have any other choise, do they? Their interest is LTR Game and pretty much nothing more.
There’s another real dividing line between C versus A + B.
D) Divorced men. They are the ones most screwed by society. They gravitate towards MGTOW and, to a lesser extent, the MRM. They pretty much stopped having any serious contact with women, for good reason. They have the fewest options in life among all these groups. They are the biggest supporters of the MRM because they need any legal reform they can get, and they need it more than anyone else. They get along well with group A but not with the others.
There’s another real dividing line between D versus B + C.
E) Married women with sons. There are a few of them around, as far as I can see. They seem to be the best potential asset of the MRM. They tend to be tradcon types, which means they only get along with B and C. The other guys simply terrify them.
That pretty much sums it up. But I think I should mention two other groups outside the Manosphere.
F) Married men with daughters. They can’t really be treated as a subgroup of C because…well, as I said, they aren’t part of the sphere and let’s face it, these guys are the worst. Novaseeker has written about this a number of times. They are the biggest white knights and generally the lamest group of people on the entire planet. They are the mortal enemies of PUAs, MGTOWs, MRAs plus anti-feminists in general. They’re useful idiots raising their daughters to be ball-busting, careerist bitches. They seem to actually believe that their innocent princesses are constantly preyed upon by an army of abhorrent, slacking players dedicated to pumping & dumping clueless young „ladies” and giving them facials. Unsurprisingly, these men are the stormtroopers of Churchianity and tradcon-ism as well.
G) Married women with daughters. Well, to the surpise of probably no one here, this group is equally bad. Some of these women occasionally stumble upon the Manosphere, but even if they actually try to learn from it, they eventually recoil in disgust and lash out against the entire ’sphere. Susan Walsh is an obvious example. This whole issue just terrifies them, because they learn that the SMP their daughters are facing is simply horroristic – from their mothers’ point of view, of course.
There’s another thing all people here tend to forget.
Women categorize men in just two groups. A) men who invest in women B) men who don’t. If you belong to A, they will tolerate your existence. They probably won’t want to have sex with you, of course, but they won’t openly treat you as their enemy. MGTOWs, PUAs, MRAs all think there are many things dividing them, but they don’t tend to notice that they all belong to B. And if you belong to B, women see you as scum. UTTER scum. That won’t necessarily keep them from having sex with you, of course, but in public discourse they will treat you as scum and they will never put up with you for a longer period of time. As far as women are concerned, men in B are enemies of the sisterhood. They don’t give a damn about the internal divisions of B. We all need to keep that in mind.
“My problem with their goal, and I think others in the “traditional manosphere” camp that Dalrock describes would agree, is that 50/50 isn’t a solution. You can’t have 50/50 egalitarianism in a society for the same reasons you can’t have it in a healthy relationship. Using the feminist laws to get half the power back for men — if such a thing were even possible — isn’t going to help much. When we had a healthy society, we didn’t have any such fairness; we had men in charge.”
Do you really want to resurrect this silly debate, Cail? Look, there are all kinds of people pushing for some sort of legal reform. MRAs are just one of them. What they attempt is to further their own legal interests by enacting changes within the framework of the current legal system. Hell, what else are they supposed to do? But, of course, tradcon idiots shit on them because they actually believe that men used to be “in charge” (only people who know nothing about the Feminine Imperative can believe such nonsense), plus they actually think that it’s a politically realistic goal to put men “back in charge”. Screw them.
I wrote about this when I first started blogging:
http://tgrwhite8974.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/the-rise-of-the-manosphere/
and
http://tgrwhite8974.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/mgtow-v-mra-v-…-v-acronymists/
Instead of trying to define what the manosphere is you should be asking what you get out of it (http://tgrwhite8974.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/what-do-you-ge…the-manosphere/)
Plus I think this should also be linked:
“At a deeper level, the goals of MRAs and PUAs are, if not directly opposed, at least somewhat at odds. MRAs want to overturn a legal and cultural regime that promotes the interests of women at the expense of men — including in the area of sexual choice. An important component of this is transferring some of the costs of that regime back on to women. To the extent that the suppression of men robs women of sexy mates, and therefore starves their hypergamy, MRAs see this side effect as a good thing: Unhappy women are more likely to support changes to the policies that are making them unhappy.
PUAs, on the other hand, not only directly benefit from the sexual liberation of women (for obvious reasons) but predicate their entire approach on insulating women from the romantic downsides of the feminist regime. PUAs pride themselves on giving women the experience of a dominant asshole at the lowest possible cost to themselves, but a consequence of this is that they are giving women all the tingle-inducing benefits of being with a dominant man without requiring those women to give up any of their state-supported power (VAWA, false-DV, false-rape, no-fault, CS) over their “partner”.”
http://0x0014.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/mrapua-hate/
As this thread is turning into a resume of The Manosphere, I’d like to mention a few – though not by any means all – resources yet to be mentioned: Rookh Kshatriya’s Anglo-Bitch is especially perceptive, although sometimes I feel that his observations on Anglo-Puritanism come close to an anti-white bias; off the Net, we have Schopenhauer’s great essay On Women, and more recently (available only on-line) F. Roger Devlin’s essays such as Home Economics and Sexual Utopia in Power which should be compulsory reading for every man and then there is also the late David Stove’s hilarious but needle-sharp essay on the Intellectual Inferiority of Women. The latter two are Philosopher’s (Kojeve-via-Hegel and Hume specialists respectively) so both, brilliantly perceptive and also beautifully written. I have not read Warren Farrell, but Steve Moxon’s Woman Racket is also compulsory reading – although its examples tend to be English rather than American. Older writers are not (pace GBFM) of much use as they take for granted what now has to be shown afresh.
In case there are those who think I have not considered the other side, I am familiar with John Stuart Mill’s famous On the Subjection of Women. Mill was the ultimate Mangina and is, I find, entirely unconvincing. If Sylvia Plath was looking for Daddy, Mill was looking for Mummy.
“A third group looks at the destruction of traditional marriage and basically says “good riddance” (MRA & MGTOW).”
I disagree. I dont believe those men are saying good riddance to traditional (ive really come to despise this word) marriage, but to the corrupt and bastardized institution we have today. Its PUAs who say good riddance to traditional marriage, for the corrupt system provides outlets for casual sex that otherwise wouldnt exist, or would in much smaller number. That isnt to say that all the PUAs of the manosphere want this destructive system to continue, but they have optimized themselves for the current state of things.
This is a Christian warning to my brothers in Christ. Please read it and understand that I respect you all as much as I can with this being the internet.
I’ve enjoyed my brief visits to the manosphere, and I have found myself agreeing with some of the observations and comments. BUT like a lot of the blog spheres, I can’t help but think that the manosphere is an ideological drama triangle.
Ideology develops the drama narrative of hero-victim-villain. It thrives on conflict. You get wrapped up onto this and FEEL the conflict as either a hero, victim, or villain. Each role has its own pleasure. The manosphere categories mentioned by Dalrock fit into this drama triangle each in their own way.
Interacting with my actual daughters and my actual wife keep me from believing the hype and ideology that gets passed around here as fact. Please remember and ground yourself in experiences with real people and give that preference over the internet chatter that makes you FEEL important or part of some kind of higher cause movement. Christ alone is worthy of that ideological commitment. Also be careful not to project your own experience as a universal rule. The desire to be a hero or victim in the drama triangle is a powerful narrative trap that powerful ideologies develop. Be careful and give it up to Christ. Love and forgiveness alone will get you out of the drama triangles that consume this world.
My rule of thumb / crude abstraction is:
1. Traditional – “Let’s save civilisation, I’ve still got a responsibility to my family and the wider community. I’ll fight the wrong-doers even if it means incurring some personal cost.”
2. PUA – “Let’s enjoy the decline. It may sadden me it has come to this, but I won’t throw myself under a bus for society. As one door slams shut, many new doors open.”
3. MGTOW – “Fuck it all. Its a raw deal and I’m not having any of it. Time to find a small band of likeminded men to hang out with. No girls in the treehouse.”
All seem to agree on the problem. The response is whether to fight, flight or crack open the popcorn.
I think many of the name manosphere blogs straddle elements of all three positions at one time or another. For example:
Roosh clearly laments the tearing of the social contract and often posts MRA/traditional-type warnings to men about marriage, false rape etc (at personal cost to himself when the haters dox him). He also lives a combination of the PUA/MGTOW lifestyle.
Rollo is married and lives a traditional model of life but advises PUAs and surrounds himself (on the internet, at least) with likedminded no-girls-in-the-treehouse men.
@Social Tags
So, what you’re telling me is this: if I close my eyes, thump my Bible and hug my female relatives, it will become obvious to me that the injustices that form the basis for the manosphere don’t really exist.
You’re new here, aren’t you?
Love & forgiveness is what got Christians in this mess in the first place …
Christian men with female bias families, will always be the ultimate manginas
Dont give a crap about men, women arent sluts & whores, cos your emasculated christian men with daughters say so …
Btw my comment on christian men making up a portion of the manosphere, christian men are also a large reason for the problems in the manosphere
Christians have a long history of not giving a crap about men …
I think you could divide MGTOW into two groups: 1) men who are angry at being betrayed by women (personally and/or societally), consider them evil/corrupt/irredeemably stupid, and would never marry one in any context; and 2) men who refuse to participate in marriage 2.0, but would gladly sign up for marriage 1.0 if it somehow made a comeback.
The first group is very vocal, but I suspect the second group is much larger.
so is coprophagy
Gold star for citing shit eating in this thread. I have a small dog who suffers same, yet on the plus side we only had to ever feed her once.
@ Social Tags
Please remember and ground yourself in experiences with real people and give that preference over the internet chatter that makes you FEEL important or part of some kind of higher cause movement. Christ alone is worthy of that ideological commitment. Also be careful not to project your own experience as a universal rule.
Contradictory.
Which is it? Use your experience, or dont?
I get what you are saying about interacting with family and the contrast to the sphere. But the points you derive from it make no sense. Many like me can cite examples of the dysfunction so noted here while currently living in (mostly) the absence of it. Being able to not paint my family with the problems of the sphere is not a difficult charge. Being able to see brewing issues in my family because of wisdom accumulated from the nuggets strewn here is priceless.
Its not an affront to God to understand human nature. Its not a sign of wrong priorities to spend time learning to be your best, as a Christian husband and a leader by reading the stories, and yes…rants, of fellow travelers.
MackPUA is largely correct when he lambasts Christian men and you are doing nothing to help prove him wrong. Don’t misunderstand, I don’t care what he thinks and neither should you in the sense that someone on an internet thread could affect your core values, but there is no dichotomy necessarily between sphere issues and our faith. In fact its incumbent on YOU to figure that out and be part of the solution, not snipe at the guys who are already doing so using platitudes and contradictions.
Rob of No’Maam is among the eminent members of the manosphere.
99% of the manosphere deals with the micro effects of inter gender dynamics, Rob is one of the few writers that relates it to the macro historical, economic, legal and political spheres.
Very good post, Dalrock. While Roissy was, unquestionably, the primary force behind the evolution of the androsphere, (or manosphere, if you prefer), to attempt to claim that ideas were merely being watered down or stolen from others who preceded him is not so much incorrect as irrelevant.
Spiting Their Pretty Faces is one of my columns from WND back in early 2003. Pre-Game, pre-Roissy, and yet some of the concepts are clearly recognizable. This is because the various contributors to the intellectual development of the sphere are observing and commenting upon reality.
It is important to respect and support even those who are on the margins of what is still a very young, very small, but very potent intellectual reaction to the feminist-driven equalitarianism of the last 50 years. It’s good to remember from where, and from whom, we have come, but that is much less important than to see where we are going.
If we who presently have the larger readerships in the sphere are fulfilling our responsibilities correctly, new writers and better and more popular writers will emerge from our readerships, just as the current androsphere developed from Roissy’s. The debates and disagreements we have – I don’t agree with Dalrock, or Rollo, or Roissy, or Roosh, on everything, nor they with me – are excellent, they are the sign of a healthy, vigorous, and growing movement. And even the single-application tangents, such as Athol (staying married) and Susan Walsh (hooking up once and for all) and now Dr. Helen (male psychological health), should be celebrated, not decried, despite their lack of philosophical purity or even, in some cases, conceptual coherence, because that is the way the influence of the sphere will spread, through a panoply of mainstream infection vectors.
Interacting with my actual daughters and my actual wife keep me from believing the hype and ideology that gets passed around here as fact. Please remember and ground yourself in experiences with real people and give that preference over the internet chatter that makes you FEEL important or part of some kind of higher cause movement.
Speaking as a Christian, to a fellow Christian, get thee behind me. Your argument is clearly false because it is based on an illogical foundation. It is a naked and unjustifiable attempt to elevate your personal experiences above that of tens of thousands of other men. Your experience with your wife and daughters not only does not trump every single other man’s experience with the various women in his life, but is completely irrelevant with regards to the macrosocietal issues that are often discussed here and throughout the androsphere.
The Church is greatly to blame for the evils of the present regime, as equalitarian Churchianity has replaced both the Bible and Christianity itself in thousands of pulpits. And I note the fact that you appeal to the title “Christ”, rather than to the Risen Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, smells a little bit of that stinking Churchian sulfur.
The “manosphere” is defined by anti-feminism, applied variously. It is the nascent practical and intellectual rebellion against the sexual revolution — PUA theatrics notwithstanding.
To survive it needs:
1) A less idiosyncratic and cutesy name (or adjoinage) — rubrics set the tone and are of hidden importance and influence
2) A clearer intellectual foundation and a deeper grounding in foundational principles
3) A positive mission, rather than just reacting negatively to the culture. A renaissance of manliness for its own sake, not because it is bitter about being treated a certain way. (i.e., MRA and MGTOW need not apply).
Likewise, the rubric must not be reactive either. It can’t be “neo” this or “dark” that. The more “male” specific it is, the more ghettoized and marginalized the community will be. The community fixates on the effects on men because men are the ones most directly affected, but this is short-sighted. “Androsphere,” “masculine conservatism” (Roosh V), the XYlophones (made that up), etc are too narrow, too much of a mirror to (obsolescing) feminism.
The actual revolution is a return to human nature, which is a celebration of the sexual difference rather than a century-long attempt at neutralizing it. The return to first principles is the definition of “conservatism” or “traditionalism,” but there is as much widespread ignorance about those labels as there is about “liberalism” and “sexual” — even on this blog. And what the world needs now is another -ism like I need a hole in my head. “Isms” imply self-justifying activity for its own sake, assertive tautologies.
The old way of establishing neologisms was to turn to the ancient languages and create dignified portmanteaus. “Philo Sophos.” “Psuche Logos.” Latin and Greek scholars should get on this. Our ugly word mash-ups and abbreviations today (“ginormous,” “blog,” “-palooza” “-fest,” “-tastic,” and of course, “-osphere”) sound like precious punny Student Government committee confections to label the next superfun!!! fundraiser.
How do you say “Return of Kings” in Latin? Greek? The term contains all the right elements (but smacks of Tolkien in English). Nobility, aristocracy (anti-demos leveling), a reclamation, the masculine gender of the word “king.”
Somebody organize a seance with Nietzsche, he was the master of well-grounded neologisms.
Matt
Very nice topic. For me personally my first site of the maospere was Glenn Sacks fathers and family. I found him looking for a way to divorce the wife and keep the kids. (only reason to have a woman around any way) I learned a ot about the laws of misandry. After a couple of years he was giving up the blog due to the work it took to moderate it. (they were a political action type group and they lobbied courts and politicians so they really had to moniter for PC content for their stuff) At about that time I found the spearhead when Bill Price was Welmer. They had this guy called Global man on there too. It was the most fun I ever had for a year or so. You could speak freely. It was very neccesary to get his male space started very smart move or a default bleesing due to his state of mind at the time. For the first time ever I saw and participated in with men absolutely not having to take shit from women. After a while techniques were kind of developed to get rid of anthill repair workers. Some time guys would post up comments they made on mainstream articles and report back on the replies. It was a badge of honor to be called a bitter loser,small dick, or any term followed by not being able to handle a strong woman.
I still comment on yahoo articles as greyghost and for a while I did yahoo answers and have 34 percent rating. (Dalrock is a more elegant writer than I am) But overall I have seen a huge shift in the attitudes of the bluepill masses.
@ Michael:
“I’m new here so I don’t know anything but I think the Mansphere would be cool if it had meetup groups.”
That would be great, but there would have to be a strict understanding of omerta, or a code of silence. Much of the manosphere and its participants are underground and anonymous, and with good reason. The feminist juggernaut will chew up and spit out anyone who doesn’t toe the party line. Early revolutionaries at the end of the 18th century often published and wrote under pseudonyms.
@ An Observer:
As much as you’re watching what happens to burned out players, I’m going to be watching what happens as more and more Christian men fall prey to frivorce and come here looking for answers. Right now Hollenhund is right that most of them are pretty much screwed. I think most of those men will probably end up either leaving the faith or indulging sin as they pick up a quasi MGTOW/player lifestyle, gaming and sleeping with the occasional cougar or divorcee. And society will continue to fragment and disintegrate as more and more look out solely for their own self interests. We already have fewer and fewer men willing to have anything at all to do with church or faith.
“Love & forgiveness is what got Christians in this mess in the first place …”
and
“MackPUA is largely correct when he lambasts Christian men and you are doing nothing to help prove him wrong. Don’t misunderstand, I don’t care what he thinks and neither should you”
Love & Forgiveness are what our Lord commanded. So yea, I really do not care what MackPUA or any internet jockey thinks. I serve the Lord. I find statements on the internet an interesting statement that is more about the poster than the idea presented.
“So, what you’re telling me is this: if I close my eyes, thump my Bible and hug my female relatives, it will become obvious to me that the injustices that form the basis for the manosphere don’t really exist.
You’re new here, aren’t you?”
Injustice? Do you enjoy being a victim? I guess it makes you feel justified and gives you a villain to blame. Hey, and then you can get on this internet sphere and be an internet-jockey hero. Feels great!
I come from a strong position of success in marriage, family, work, health — etc. So I don’t have any kind of psychological need to be a victim, a villain, or a hero. Yea me – whoopee. I’m just sayin, it seems like a lot of the victimization and hero-talk here is more about the posters than reality. Sure, there are some nuggets of insight, but take every human conversation with a HUGE grain of salt and understand the narrative position of the speaker in their very real need to feel justified and righteous in who they are and the decisions they have made.
Social Tags
Your comment is what blissful ignorance blue pill style looks like. My goal in my life time or my sons life time is to make it impossible for a man to ever have that state of being and still be proud of himself. And then one day it will be normal for a man to think that way.
I am trying to teach you about the trap of the drama triangle. We are steeped in it from an early age. We crave it. It makes us feel so important and righteous. BEWARE! The Lord taught us to transcend it through Love & Forgiveness.
Jesus Christ was not a Victim — he was exalted into Glory by the Father. Jesus Christ was not a Villain – he refused Satan’s temptations. Jesus Christ was not a Hero – he just did what the Father told him to do.
Beware of the drama narratives and ideologies of this world tempting you into the drama triangle of conflict and strife. Once you are sucked in, the struggle becomes your master.
“Your comment is what blissful ignorance blue pill style looks like. My goal in my life time or my sons life time is to make it impossible for a man to ever have that state of being and still be proud of himself. And then one day it will be normal for a man to think that way.”
I am proud of myself as a man, and my son will be proud of himself.
You sound like a feminist. Goodness. Just listen to what you are saying. I’ve heard the same things countless times from feminists. Just switch the word “man” for “woman”.
I can’t argue with that. BTW how old is your son I might need a retirement property in a few years.I might send one of my daughters over to pick it for me. So your grandson and I can talk about the manosphere and bluepill delusions in your son’s exhouse.
@ Social tags:
“Interacting with my actual daughters and my actual wife keep me from believing the hype and ideology that gets passed around here as fact. Please remember and ground yourself in experiences with real people and give that preference over the internet chatter that makes you FEEL important or part of some kind of higher cause movement.”
Interacting with all the women in my life, and filtering past interactions through the androsphere, has only confirmed and strengthened the realities observed and commented and catalogued here. I’ve seen the things written about here. I’ve seen them in action. I’ve seen Game. I’ve seen it work. I’ve seen so-called “dark Game” work. I’ve seen “dread” work, spectacularly and instantaneously. I’ve seen women respond viscerally and positively to dominance and straightforward conduct. I’ve seen women reject the beta and go home with the jerk alpha. I’ve seen it work on all kinds of women, from every age, station, occupation and ideology.
“I can’t argue with that. BTW how old is your son I might need a retirement property in a few years.I might send one of my daughters over to pick it for me. So your grandson and I can talk about the manosphere and bluepill delusions in your son’s exhouse.”
Nice fantasy. Add some unicorns and elves and then we might be able to have a rational discussion. Let me try.
My son will be riding a unicorn with a tiny elf strapped on his back. He will have a beautiful wife riding her mare next to him, looking at him adoringly. Their two strong sons and two beautiful daughters will be doing cartwheels and frollicking in a meadow. Meanwhile, you and your brood will be brooding and shuffling around your peasant huts, complaining about your oppression and the matriarchy that’s keeping you down Occasionally you will mutter something about “blue pills” and “PGTOW” (peasants go their own way).
Deti —
I have no problem with understanding effective techniques to help manage one’s affairs. I have a problem with people making this some kind of Epic struggle. The manosphere has some useful nuggets. Knowledge of frame, the shit test, etc are all useful techniques to shoring up one’s headship of the family. That’s why I’m here. I’m not here to pretend to be some kind of damn foot soldier in the class/gender struggle.
The manosphere exists because of technology. At this time and place it is the best method for men to link. The ideas expressed in the manosphere are nothing new. Just read GBFM’s book list and you will find all the issues discussed today in one form or another. Arguing who came first is pointless as there are no new ideas under the sun.
That is not to disparage people like Dalrock, Roissy, etc… Every generation needs its messengers that they can relate to. They are to be admired for keeping universal truths in front of us.
That was was good one. I have to see if you can get unicorn tags in Texas.
“That was was good one. I have to see if you can get unicorn tags in Texas.”
I got mine from the underpants gnomes living in my backyard.
Cautiously Pessimistic says:
May 15, 2013 at 1:21 pm
“Is this really true? It might be (I’m honestly asking), but I always took their opposition to marriage as opposition specifically to marriage 2.0. You’re saying they’re opposed to marriage 1.0 (or biblical marriage, which I take to be similar if not the same) as well? I haven’t seen that.”
This may have already been addressed, but I could not hold off in responding to this comment to read the entire thread. I’ll answer, yes it is true.
Most (there will never be 100% agreement that the sun rises in the east) MGTOW feel that marriage is dead, dead, dead. Many in the MRA see marriage restoration as a possibility, but not in it’s Marriage 1.0 version. Feminists argue that all us Manosphere people are trying to return to the 50’s with women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. The best description I have read, IIRC on AVfM, was that feminism removed any shred of female responsibility to men, while the MRA wants to finish the destruction of the social contract by removing any obligation of men towards women. This I think is a critical statement of the intent of many.
In the MGTOW group there are frequent discussions of what a truely onesided and unfair deal Marriage 1.0 was for men. They acknowledge that men derived some benefits, unlike in Marriage 2.0, but that in general they would not be willing to put on the shackles of Marriage 1.0 either. Another statement I admire, but can not attribute accurately, is, “Feminism is simply women kind without the makeup.” The MGTOW and the maker of the previous statement are saying the same thing; feminism did not change women it merely revealed their true nature. And that nature is not pretty.
The PUA community is certain and in (almost) full agreement within their group that marriage 2.0 is a man no go zone. Any man that marries in the era of well known Marriage 2.0 risks is an idiot and deserves the misery he will get. They do not care about any restoration of marriage 1.0 or any revisions to the laws that might make long term relationships with women less dangerous for men since their policy is not to have long term relationships. There is a small sub-set that does go into LTR game but that is not the core of this demographic. I agree with much of the PUA on the reality of todays western women but I have one big problem with them. Feminist assert that men are just dancing monkeys there for the amusement of women. PUA for much of their part are trying to teach ment to be better dancing monkeys. As I have aged out of the fog of tetosterone I have little interest in being even a very good dancing monkey. Also, I see little value in today’s western woman to make putting in any effort to get in her pants worthwhile. What they call a grindig dry spell I prefer to think of as a welcome period of relate peace and tranquility.
@ Social Tags
Do you suppose that feminists don’t see themselves as gender warriors? If you passively ignore them, will they go away? Has that worked so far?
Someone on my site just linked to information about the PPO laws in my state. Did you know that it is extremely easy for a woman to get a PPO against a man? Did you know that as soon as she does, he is required to surrender all his firearms to the police immediately and may not have them back so long as there is a PPO against him? He doesn’t need to have ever done anything wrong, yet his Second Amendment rights are violated due to DV hysteria.
If people aren’t willing to be “foot soldiers” by speaking against this kind of thing, what do you recommend that they do? I’m glad that you have never experienced injustice directed against you, but have you no compassion for the many men that have?
Social Tags:
Fine. Don’t be a foot soldier. The point is that all this information is here and should be here, so that men can decide for themselves how best to live their lives.
re: Social Tags and “hero-victim-villain. It thrives on conflict. …
“Interacting with my actual daughters …”
I think Social Tags has a point – two points really and they are good ones worth taking to heart for a variety of reasons.
The point of narrative is really quite critical. I notice that it seems to work for me to divide people into two types. The first type encounters a person with an attitude of “what do we have here?” and proceeds to learn about the person, as a unique person – each new fact and experience contributing to what this new person is. The first type has human relationships, relatively fulfilling ones and tends to be low on the drama index.
The second type seems to quickly try to put a person into their role in some over-arcing, ahem, narrative. They then proceed to have a pre-defined relationship with the role as befits their own role in the narrative. Such folks are terribly common and their interactions exude drama entirely out of proportion to their own allotment in the real world – sort of “rich people problems” … although just as often … it’s “poor people problems” too, i.e.: if you stopped worrying so much about your invented problems, you’d have assets left over to do something about your real ones.
To the second point … I have my moments of reading or listening to content on the manosphere and wondering, “does this guy really KNOW many women?” I routinely keep manosphere concepts in mind when I interact with women at the kids’ school, at the worship center, at work … and it helps to remind, at a minimum, that there is a SHORT distance from what is taken as received wisdom in the manosphere and what would be vomited out forthwith in ordinary, conventional interaction. I think it is more useful to ask “why?” than to be assured of one’s rightness. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” If you don’t know why they have their understandings as received wisdom, not only will you get no where with them, but you could get yourself in big, and unnecessary trouble.
Here – comes to mind again Stardusk. Very interesting fellow and well studied. And yet – when listening to him you get the sense that (1) he has been exploited by several women, maybe many, yet (2) he really, really must not know many women.
I’m sure he and his supporters would heavily protest my accusation on (2), but listen to “The Time for Pretense is Over”. He believes what he is saying, only as a person who has lost all sense of how the other 3.4 BILLION men in the world have flesh and blood sisters, daughters, mothers, friends … there is ZERO chance of him getting anywhere with what he’s saying, no matter the occasional soundness of his points. He’s become so abstract in his own sense of exploitation, his own “drama narrative”, that he’s lost all grounding with a reality where he can actually achieve anything.
Deti
he is not one to argue pionts with but is a fun to watch and listen to. The beaste is going to eat so why not him and his progeny.
@Zorro
Ding Ding Ding!!!!! We have a winner.
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage others to view the movie 13 Assasins as the best Samurai movie made in time.
Zorro,
Where can I send you a virtual brewskis?
For the record I consider myself MGHOW at this point in life. I did the whole marriage thing and never again!
My goal is to just go thru life trading in girlfriends until I wear the wooden coat.
I could go on and on, the reasons to not get married. The worst part is today’s women are in a constant state of open rebellion. It is going to wear you down.
shinz & MD: I understand and can support (if not be happy about) men walking away from marriage as it stands today. I wouldn’t advise any man to marry if he can avoid doing so and still keep his conscience and/or faith. I was just surprised by the idea of the MGTOW group in particular being opposed to marriage 1.0 as well. I don’t know much about the MRA group, as that’s not where my focus is. The MGTOW group is closer to my focus (it’s my fallback position, after all), and I guess I just hadn’t run across that part of it yet.
shinzaemon
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage others to view the movie 13 Assasins as the best Samurai movie made in time.
That one is the remake of the 1960’s movie? Should be very good. Thanks for telling about it.
From about the same time (1963 or so) I commend to your attention Kobayashi’s movie “Harakiri”. A man who keeps his word, no matter the cost to himself. Woe and doom to the cheats and liars…
There is much discussion on whether the manosphere conversation can turn the tide of feminism. For me, I feel like that lone starfish the man on the beach threw back in the water – it made a difference to that one. There’s no way to know how far that ripple effect can go. For us it was the clueless, rebellious wife/frustrated husband who reads WND, then found columns by VD, then VP, then Roissy, then sat said clueless, rebellious wife down to “shut up and read.” I am so thankful to have learned about the true, observable nature of women. Self help books and psychologists have severely lacked in this area and had left me confused as to what I just wasn’t getting. To learn that in many things AWALT, gave power to my ability to approach those aspects of my nature that are marriage destroying, and deal with them cognitively (and prayerfully).
@ Social Tags:
I understand what you are trying to say, I really do. I used to make the same mistake as you are making now, and I did it despite seeing up close and personal -in my own family- men being put through the ringer by women in numerous ways. And I’d been seeing it since I was 6 years old. I didn’t need the manosphere to tell me how easy it is for a woman to bring a man to his knees. But I kept thinking, “Since I’m not like that, it’s wrong to paint all women with that brush.”
I had a commenter on our blog who recently admonished me by reminding me that it used to be fairly commonplace for men to treat women with the same level of callousness. You can read his entire comment here, but in essence he asserted that turnabout is fair play and that men started us on the path that we are on now.
I don’t think it matters, but it is worth noting that there was a time when those who refused to do their duty were treated with a fair level of contempt. What we have now is villains being painted as victims and heroes all at one, to borrow from your narrative.
Being loving includes speaking the truth and calling fellow believers to live what they claim to believe. We do no one any favors when we use “forgiveness” and “love” as words that gloss over the need for accountability to God’s word. In fact, I’d say it’s just the opposite. If we say nothing, treating choices as if they are irrelevant so long as we come to church and cover ourselves in flowery rhetoric about “God’s best for me” and other such nonsense, we have the blood of those lost souls on our hands.
Once the gospel has been preached, and a soul is won, the next logical question is How then shall we live? To remain silent or refuse to confront church with a divorce, adultery, illegitimacy, and degeneracy rate on par with the world is just crazy.
Good grief….I have a new favorite post.
I would never have thought.
AR,
I did not know about it being a remake. I plan on watching both ur suggestions. You can never watch too many samurai movies.
I feel I could support marriage 1.0 returning. I mean when it is going good it feels good, you know?
But now with VAWA, EPL, Ashley Madison and cuckoldry? No Thanks!
HKU: Good on ‘ya. Your history and JT’s taxonomy are both very enlightening.
Every time I read GBFM it makes me think of Dave Chapelle parodying Lil’ Jon. Random spatterings of incoherent lololzzzllozz, butthex, and bernankified fiat currency, then interspersed with incredibly lucid and intelligent points, to be followed with more lolololzzzzlolzz,…
The Manosphere is where we talk about what we see and what we believe until we decide what we are going to do.
It isn’t the Men’s Rights Movement. If the Manosphere evaporated, it wouldn’t matter. We aren’t going to decide as a group and move as a group. We’re men. We don’t do that.
Well, *I* don’t do that. If there are guys who get together, vote, and then believe what the crowd decided then … whatever. I don’t know any men like that. Ugh.
Last year, a group of us bloggers got together in a private forum and we discussed a definition for the Manosphere. Ian put it in his comment:
“The Manosphere is a loose collections of internet blogs, forums, books, and other elements concerning themselves with male interests and masculine issues.”
It really is that simple. The fascinating part is the overlap of interest and support in natural gender roles. The traditional Christians and the PUAs actually agree that maintaining natural gender roles is a good thing. Also note that aside from the dark triad PUAs, many guys practicing Game really are just looking to get a girlfriend into some type of committed relationship.
I actually started my own blog as a PUA website and I was classified as a PUA, despite my status as middle-age. Over time, I dialed back on the PUA terms. What my peers refer to as Game, I call Charisma. When the traditional Christian bloggers and commenters found my blog, I was stunned at the level of support. I was told (by Sunshine Mary?) that my dating and attraction advice was in complete concordance with gender roles as described by scripture. Imagine, a PUA supporting scripture…. who knew?!
I’ve read some of the comments disparaging the Manosphere. Eh, opinions differ but a space for men won’t disappear. There is a commonality in the masculine experience that simply can’t be casually dismissed with insults or stifled with absurd social expectations that are complete counter to natural and prevailing gender roles.
As an aside, I am supremely grateful to Dalrock because he really got my blog going when he linked to me over two years ago. 1.3 million page views later and a privately hosted spin-off blog (Red Pill Dating) later, it’s been an incredible experience.
http://www.cotwa.info/2013/05/most-shocking-federal-policy-yet-sexual.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Opus, if you like Roger Devlin’s “Home Economics” (I do as well), I think you’d also find value in the tightly-written “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus. It’s a book orderable via Amazon.com, or readable for free here: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html
Minorly interesting news item:
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20130515-49727.html
Apparently a garden club in Germany has absolutely had it with single women, that they just endlessly bitch and don’t do what they need to do.
The manosphere is a slight rebirth of male only spaces (or where a predominant number of men congregate), when and where periods of sex segregation was allowed and seen as good. Not that this is the best place in the world, but since there is so much confusion, brainwashing and lies out there, it does feel like home here. It’s like a smallish but intense light in the middle of much darkness, horror and terror.
MRAs are perhaps the oldest branch (1970s), followed by PUAs (1980s). The most recent ones (after the year 2000) are MGTOW types (between 20 and 30 years old on average, sometimes in their late teens).
(1) Man up and marry those sluts (Blue Pill)
(2) Build a life of hedonism (PUA)
(3) Forsake civilization (MGTOW)
(4) Be patient and pray (Traditional)
(5) Try to change the system from within (MRA)
(1) is untenable, (2) is unsatisfying, (3) is suicide, (4) is inaction, (5) is futile.
These seem like poor choices.
It is. Ever tried to make lemonade out of lemons?
I have a game related case study up on my blog. It was suggested that you might be a good source of perspective on the matter. I would appreciate your input if you are so inclined.
Thanks
@Social Tags
Ideology develops the drama narrative of hero-victim-villain.
Others have pointed out the problems with your view, so I will mention only that it contains a kernel of wisdom.
In psychology, Transactional Analysis (Stephen Karpman, Eric Berne) reports a game called “persecutor-victim-rescuer”. It appears to be the ideological hero-victim-villain narrative in microcosm.
One of the features of Berne’s “Games People Play” is that they follow a script where the players change places.
The reason we find ourselves in such a mess is that we started playing a game where women were perceived as victims and men as oppressors. In the process of “rescuing” women, the State, white knights and feminists pose as rescuers but quickly become bullies themselves.
We can learn a lot from the Wikipedia page on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
In the terms of the drama triangle, the “rescuer” is not a person helping someone in an emergency. It is someone who has a mixed or covert motive that is actually benefiting egoically in some way from being “the one who rescues”. The rescuer has a surface motive of resolving the problem, and appears to make great efforts to solve it, but also has a hidden motive to not succeed, or to succeed in a way that they benefit. For example, they may feel a sense of self-esteem or status as a “rescuer”, or enjoy having someone dependent or trusting of them – and act in a way that ostensibly seems to be trying to help, but at a deeper level plays upon the victim in order to continue getting their payoff.
As Transactional Analyst Claude Steiner says:
… the Victim is not really as helpless as he feels, the Rescuer is not really helping, and the Persecutor does not really have a valid complaint.
The situation plays out when a situation arises and a person takes a role as victim or persecutor. Others then take the other roles. Thereafter ‘the two players move around the triangle, thus switching roles’, so that for example the victim turns on the rescuer, the rescuer switches to persecuting — or as often happens the rescuer ends up entering the situation and becoming a victim.
The covert purpose for each ‘player’ and the reason the situation endures is that each gets their unspoken (and frequently unconscious) psychological wishes/needs met in a manner they feel justified, without having to acknowledge the broader dysfunction or harm done in the situation as a whole. As such, each player is acting upon their own selfish ‘needs’, rather than acting in a genuinely responsible or altruistic manner. Thus a character might ‘ordinarily c[o]me on like a plaintive victim; it is now clear that she can switch into the role of Persecutor providing it is “accidental” and she apologises for it’.
MGTOW is not the answer, but it does one thing right: it refuses to get sucked into yet another round of the persecutor-victim-rescuer game.
HKU (who’s site is really a monetized mash up of MRM / MGTOW greatest hits) got me to thinking, I wondered what my earliest foray into the manosphere actually was. So I went into the SoSuave archives and blew off the dusty tomes of manosphere arcana to look at my earliest of early posts (we moderators can do this). You must remember that SoSuave actually had two incarnations, the first forum from pre-1998 and the one we still enjoy today.
It turns out that my first post as a sosuave member was in April 2001. I know I had earlier ones on the defunct board, but I can’t link to that anymore. I was still in college at the time and I was relating a lot of what my psychology minor (later to be dual major) and behavioralism were reflecting in what I saw in the behaviors of men and women. I had some really good discourse with a member named Pook and also Dallas (from Intellectual Whores & Ladder Theory) who’d referred me to the site. There were no Roosh or Roissy (or CH for that matter) blogs back then and I was vaguely aware of a guy called Mystery who was a magician that got a lot of ass by doing his close up tricks around chicks in clubs and then relating the psychology behind his success with women.
I had a couple of up and coming magician friends in Nevada at the time, a guy named Tony Clark and Chris Angel who’d tell me how magic was all about psychology and convincing an audience to buy the act. It gelled with a lot of what I was reading at the time about cold reads and behaviorism. I read up on Mystery and what really stuck with me was his describing psychology in terms of how to apply it in a ‘sarge’. I didn’t know what a sarge was then (even though I’d ‘sarged’ long before in my youth), but the principles were sound.
Chris told me once that you have to make your audience uncomfortable in order to be the source of their comfort. Most airlines, he said, define “comfort” as a lack of varying degrees of “discomfort”. The whole process of flying was uncomfortable for most people, so their mindset is one of expecting discomfort in a situation they had no comfort control over. Successful magicians and later PUAs learned how to create a condition of discomfort while simultaneously being the source of their ‘target’s’ delivered comfort.
In 2002 I was in a psych class and learning about behaviorism. I began to see a lot of what women ‘did’ to men was identical in purpose to operant conditioning. PUAs were using behaviorism as well, but it fascinated me that although this behavioral conditioning psychology was well established long before I was born, no one seemed to have the balls to make the connections of how that conditioning affected gender relations or how it was implemented by a feminized social structure. For me it was like all these dots that no on really wanted to connect either because it was inconvenient for the feminine, or because the masculine was afraid of the repercussions from having theorized about something that might have had a tinge of misogyny to it.
I still have my notes I took at the time and I would annotate my notes for ideas about posts I was going to make on sosuave later for discussion.
We can argue about who got there first with regards to the manosphere, but does it really matter? I’m one of the three R’s in the manosphere, but I’m not the manosphere. Neither is Krauser or Privateman or Dalrock, we all are. It’s still developing and evolving and while I think I’ve made a significant contribution to it, I know that some day, probably sooner than I realize, manosphere people will look at my writings, Dal’s writings, even Aunt Giggles writings and refer to them with the same regard we have for Mystery or David D’ Angelo, or Ross Jefferies. We’re building a foundation for writers and thinkers we don’t even know about today.
Deti,
The current generation of church men have been thrown under the feminist bus. Few take the red pill. I dont see much potential there; most are too ready to excuse female behaviour as if their moral agency was limited. Dead end.
VD once referred to CH as a prophet, albeit a secular one, which got me thinking. Whilst their behaviour as players is clearly amoral, their insighrs are invaluable. Where will they go when burnt out? Nihilism is unlikely. Pua is a form of religion, it is their life. What next?
It would be a bitter irony if burnt out players made better evangelists than the mark driscolls.
@Social Tags:
Apparently your life experiences are quite different than many of the men who read and post here. I would advise you to continue to read and hopefully learn with an open mind, rather than attacking this one available venue (manosphere) for men to share and hopefully improve themselves.
@Social Tags
Fact is, women are craven, depraved creatures. Sinners.
In addition, they have a mutinous element towards men, as per the curse of eve.
These two statements are scripturally sound statements. Obvious, basic doctrine.
Feminism attempts to lie to all men and women on both of these two points- “we only want equality” and stuff like “women are more pure or good, than men are, because look at bad stuff that men do”
Satan is known as the father of lies, right? The lies that flow into and through our communities are the primary weapon of our enemy, Satan.
These lies must be railed against and destroyed at every turn. These lies cause or facilitate sin and suffering at a profound level, infecting everything.
Silence is a vote of consent.
Would you sit there and pat yourself on the back because your house is in order, and scoff at those who speak truth to smash sinful lies, effectively battling their mortal enemy? Insisting that the hero/villain/victim drama is just them feeding their fleshy little egos? This, it seems to me, is tantamount to suggesting that we do not have a real and present enemy, and that there is no battle save for our imaginary one. Just give everyone a hug.
I, for one, will speak up in the ways I can, against these lies. You are free to remain silent, but please, don’t suggest that the rest of us should. Your contentment or cowardice doesn’t suit us.
You can die in your la-z-boy sipping an iced tea, if you like.
I’ll die with my boots on. I’m no hero, no victim, and not much of a villain.
I just believe in fighting for right, and fighting against wrong. You can sit there and suggest that all we need to do is give folks a big hug and dwell on the wonderment of Christ, if you like. Your way is not the only way, or the best way, and my way is not the wrong way. Your posturing/ pontificating and acting like YOU are the only one around here who know how things *really* are stinks a lot.
I just don’t think God wants us to sit on our ass like that.
Do you not care about the children that suffer as the families fracture? Do you not care about the crushing heartbreak people experience when they are confused and unable to succeed in relationships and marriage because they have been lied to?
Does it bother you that the churches out there are serving up a hot pile of those lies every Sunday?
I guess not, because you certainly don’t sound as though you intend to do anything about it besides pretend it isn’t so bad. God forbid you should do anything heroic and end up in some “drama triangle”
I think it is neato that you read an article somewhere about “drama triangles” and now you are applying it to everything as though it is the authoritative viewpoint on how things are, because you like the sound of it. It sounds like bullshit to me. If we weren’t supposed to have any drama or conflict, why do you suppose God set us in the same realm as his adversary? Your little Garden of Eden *hugs* candyland doesn’t wash with the boots on the ground.
your theory of how we should operate fails as soon as you exit the garden.
note: the garden is long gone. Get your head out of the clouds and do something eternally significant.
“That which you did unto the least of these, you did unto me”
Don’t go helping anyone, though, even though Jesus said so- don’t want to be in any “drama triangles”
MRM is a waste of time since they refuse to engage in the type of action that will bring about change.
They are most likely honorable men and fail to understand fighting with honor equals defeat
so much navel gazing has anyone found any lint?
@Solomon
Men also are “craven, depraved creatures. Sinners.” The curse of Adam is one of endless toil that will be rewarded with thorns and thistles. This is indeed where we find ourselves.
No one wants to be in a “drama triangle”, but it is one of the aspects of our fallen nature that those who say they are “only trying to help” often have their own hidden motives. They may enter a situation believing they are a neutral referee, but quickly end up taking sides. They are more likely to prolong a problem than actually solve it. This seems particularly likely to happen whenever the government gets involved, either when it is “peacekeeping” abroad or “helping the disadvantaged” at home.
Social Tags can speak for himself; but I do not see any harm in looking at things from a different angle. If it’s wrong, ignore it; if it’s right, it doesn’t mean it’s the only way to understand “how things *really* are”, it’s just another string to our bow.
Many of the “games” described by Eric Berne are ways that therapists get suckered by their clients, or drawn in to become an actor in the client’s life. If government used only 10% of this knowledge when it set out to “do good”, we wouldn’t be in such a darned mess.
Though you clearly despise hi-falutin’ talk about “drama triangles”, there are some practical lessons:
1. It is not women who are our enemy, it is those who pretend to be rescuing them. And yes, it is a pretense.
2. Do not try to talk the “rescuers” over to our side: doing this is only playing their game, by their rules. It is much better to put them out of business, if we can.
Ton says:
MRM is a waste of time since they refuse to engage in the type of action that will bring about change.
They are most likely honorable men and fail to understand fighting with honor equals defeat.
Alright, I’ll bite. What is the type of action that will bring about change?
@James:
How do we put them out of business?
@Tom:
What type of action will bring about the change in our culture that we desire?
@Alcestise- that quote in your post causes me to offer another alternative response when reality confronts you – associate with good women, so you don’t forget that they exist. It’s helped a little for me, although it’s become a mixed bag as the years go by. There are a couple of women in the group of friends that are good women and good wives. There are others though that prove that marriage can turn some women into lesser versions of themselves. Of course some have said that it’s because their husbands let them get away with it.
@MKP:
You submitted while I was typing…..
Things will not change until women, white knights etc and government fear pissing on men. There is no peaceful, non aggressive, political solution
@ Vox: “Spiting Their Pretty Faces is one of my columns from WND back in early 2003. Pre-Game, pre-Roissy, and yet some of the concepts are clearly recognizable. This is because the various contributors to the intellectual development of the sphere are observing and commenting upon reality.”
Before Roissy existed these discussions were taking place on sosuave + mpua forums etc and I’ve no doubt that before that these discussions popped up in older message boards.
@ Matthew King: Actually the manosphere needs less centralism, not more. Whatever is centralized is easily corrupted. If the manosphere develops a firm foundation and basis then same shills who marched through the humanities, corrupting the foundations of Western thought, will end up at the head of the manosphere. Already the MRA side is corrupted by false blogs seeking to use MRA to bring about more government control under the guise of being the anti-thesis of feminism.
Creating a centralized manosphere will lead to it becoming a clique based on power, favors, back scratching, exploitation etc. Its better of the way it is with loosely connected blogs linked roughly to each other where the user is free to make up their own mind about what they read.
Hey everyone, long time reader first time commentator here.
Unfortunately I lucked out by being in the wave of 20 something’s men that are now being forced to deal with the consequences of the years of unchecked, unabated feminism and the erosion of the family. Then again, it seems that many men of all ages have been wounded by this societal degeneration and I doubt the young women of the 2020s, 30s or 40s will be much different pending some massive system collapse.
I do not think a solid definition of the Manosphere matters beyond a few very vague points. Whenever I try and shove a red pill down one of my friends throats and need the inevitable extra bit of persuasion I just drop the Manosphere into their laps. Whenever they ask what that is I simply tell them it’s the male point of view of modern society. Very vague; but really, all our discussions boil down to a simple collective of men (and the occasional woman) discussing without illusion how badly slanted the modern west is against the modern male. Let’s face it; the Manosphere is not a political party, the details do not matter. I only mention this since it’s obvious that many commentators here are passionate about how they think the sphere should generally be represented toward outsiders but – do you think feminist spheres are having a similar discussion about how feminism should be portrayed to the world? Do you think they’re having long, rational discussions with well argued and dissenting views about whether they’re 2nd Wave feminists, or feminists for Jesus or some such? No; feminism is a united front of selfish creatures. We, in turn, need to be a united front against their destabilizing influence.
TL;DR – don’t hate your fellow man in here guys. We’re all in this trench together.
@GBFM
May 15, 2013 at 3:15 pm
“Trinity: I know why you’re here, Neo. I know what you’ve been doing… why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer reading roissy & GBFM.”
Are you watching my life GBFM?!
Also, little late to the Samurai movie suggestion, but everyone interested in great movies for great men should watch Harakiri.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056058/
Dalrock, you’re a beautiful human being. Your blog and others like it have helped me save a few of my friends from ruining their lives with terrible women. Regardless of how we define it, the Manosphere IS helping save at least a few good men from a tortured fate. Keep up the good work gents.
With all the evidence of social-issues in children raised in fatherless homes, you’d think the pin would drop before too long. I’m not saying it will.
If children BELONGED to their father, as in wives saw that they were helping to raise her husband’s children (rather than living vicariously through ‘her’ princesses and shemales) perhaps we’d see families staying together.
Perhaps there’d be a generation of men ready to command and conquer the world rather than decay in prisons or in homosexuality.
If a king doesn’t have the authority to possess everything in his own castle, what more can he gain?
It is time to take back what is rightfully yours, each man in his own kingdom.
I’ve introduced myself earlier in this post but was awaiting moderation… so a long winded hello (surprise surprise!) is only a scroll away 🙂
Speaking of Stardusk and the MGTOW issue:
Of course, different people have different perspectives, but it’s interesting to see how far off people get of what the different things are sometimes. Then add the sharpening of the saw that some people have over others when it comes to understanding and you get a wide degree of opinion on the issue of marriage and what it represents (I know I’ve had my epiphanies over time thinking and studying on such issues). There’s always disagreements and even complete misunderstandings, too, but such are things.
Miserman says: May 15, 2013 at 4:41 pm
+1.
mackPUA says:
May 15, 2013 at 6:09 pm
As it seems Elam is going to find out first-hand given enough time (from what I can tell the AvFM basement is already on fire). It’ll be interesting to see for sure, but given prior history (standard disclaimer here), my guess would be that Elam will be kicked off his own site by Valentine’s Day 2015. Hope I end up being wrong about that, but I have a feeling I won’t be.
@ Social Tags
May 16, 2013 at 6:11 am
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. At you saying that we shouldn’t give credence to the situations men discuss on here? I think it’s safe to say that most of the men who seek out the Manosphere because they’re bored or have a vague notion that somethin’ ain’t right in Denmark.
If your wife and daughters really do have the self esteem and common sense to not give (or have given) their bodies up to any guy who slips them a smile and a wink then…well, you have something special – and exceedingly rare. Religion alone is not enough to reel in the feral side of modern women. Your daughters might be chaste and humble around you, but depending on their age it could be a complete different story when you’re not around. Every religious woman I have met (around my age, think 20-26 bracket) has also been despicably whorish, no different from the majority of their female peers. That is an empirical observation from my own social interactions, so maybe other’s social circles are vastly different (though if they were the Manosphere would probably not exist),
The girl’s from my High School who never missed a chance to berate us sinners are now all approaching their mid 20s with dozens of sexual partners under their belt. The most religious girl in my dorm during first year of Uni, a hard core baptist, spent the first month praising Jesus and looking down her nose at all of us ‘sinners’. Then she spent the next four years looking up her nose at the guy above her – the moment she left her community she lost her virginity within three weeks month and graduated university with so many notches on her headboard it looked like a pack of rabid wolverines had been scratching away at it. The other religious woman who weren’t as outspoken had similar experiences. Just recently I was at a friend’s party, whom is dating a similar type of woman (she’s 21 and goes to church, so he honestly believes her to be chaste – even though within our own circle we both know of five guys have had sex with her – hopefully I get can get a red pill into him before long). Many of the woman’s friends were there, ranging from about 18-24. They got talking about their close, personal relationships with Jesus and what not, and a buddy of mine from Uni (a devout Sunni Muslim from Syria) blatantly asked if any of them were virgins then. They proudly admitted none of them were (though one or two of the youngest ones may have been and were just posing to look cool in their sister’s eyes) and excused their rampant sexual deviousness with excuses that they were ‘Just human’ – acceptable, if lame – and that Jesus had already forgiven them so it was okay. I’m not a religious guy, but isn’t adultery a pretty major sin according to the bible? And is it okay to constantly sin, ask forgiveness, and then blatantly commit the same sin and repeat that cycle over and over again?
For the most part I have found women treat religion far differently then men do. For women religion is a moral hamster; on Sunday, when they’re physically cleaning themselves out from all the men they’ve had since Thursday, they get down on their knees and mentally clean themselves out as well. Then it’s four days until the cycle begins anew.
@tacomaster, re:May 15, 2013 at 6:12 pm…
Before there was MGTOW there was “lay celibate” and not all celibates need be involuntarily so. I think that’s a road that is valid for a lot of men and may neutralize the nonconformity problem of staying single. MGTOW blows most peoples minds and would mark a man in many’s eyes as deviant or scum. But lay celibate are words most catholics would immediately grasp even if they’d never heard of it until then and protestants would take very little coaching.
That said, more to your question…MGTOW in the Mein Kampf manner of Stardusk deserves a response and deserves to be repudiated. Stardusk sees the Feminine Imperative with such unusual acuity that he seems to have become incapable of perceiving femald human beings. All he recognizes is the source code.
I do not take it as a given that all MGTOWs are celibates, they do not all, like Stardusk, renounce all relationships with women.
Less extreme than Stardusk many MGTOW just seem to be on a strategy of starve the system … or if they can’t do that then at least deny the system the fruits of their labor. Whether one agrees or not I consider that a personal choice that’s basically perogative. I.e: you may have no taste for trailers but no one is forcing you to buy one. Their choice, their perogative, nothing really to criticize.
When workers figure out they are being exploited its their God given right not to work consequences come what may. Far be it from me to fault them. I only speak for myself though I’m not sure about others.
VD once referred to CH as a prophet, albeit a secular one, which got me thinking. Whilst their behaviour as players is clearly amoral, their insighrs are invaluable. Where will they go when burnt out? Nihilism is unlikely. Pua is a form of religion, it is their life. What next?
It would be a bitter irony if burnt out players made better evangelists than the mark driscolls.
An Observer
That sounds like a good Idea.
Just my observation….After reading the post and a lot of the responses, it seems like Roissy, in my opinion, is to the manosphere as Rush Limbaugh is to talk radio. People were doing talk radio long before Rush came on the scene, but he brought it to a different level and paved the way for others to voice their opinions. And both have controversial opinions.
What Novaseeker said about Roissy….”See, the thing is that his social commentary which he attached to his gaming blog is what made it the hub of what became the manosphere. Without that he would have been another game blogger, and a late one as you say. The social commentaries, connecting Game with larger social/political/cultural issues, is what made Roissy what it was, and is what gave birth to the manosphere.”
That’s how I came to be interested in this manosphere. Out of frustration, I ran across his blog by accident about a year or so ago after a google search about relationship matters led me to some frustrated chick’s blog who had called out Roissy. Since he had linked his blog, naturally I checked it out, out of curiousity. Even though I thought that a lot of the PUA stuff left little to be desired for me at the time, I was intrigued by his observations with the decline of culture in a post-feminist society. Much of which I had observed as well, and was curious as his opinions on the matter. Enough to which I would check back to his site from time to time. Then, one day, I clicked on GBFM’s link in the comment section of one of Roissy’s posts (mostly trying to figure out what was going on with all those crazy posts). GBFM actually had some interesting stuff and had linked to Dalrock in one of the posts. (That’s how I stumbled upon this blog, BTW).
The PUA,MGTOW, Peter pans ,MRA’s,and traditionalist are all part of the same masculine army. Just as every soldier is not and infantry man we have different men that are red pill. All men should work at getting off the blue pill and helping other men. (basically telling the truth without fear or with fear just don’t carry the lie.) Each type of man has a role and sas the man ages and changes his type of redpill man changes. A PUA will age into a MGTOW. A MGTOW type might become more of an MRA type. A peter pan type is just one less man feeding the beast.
I don’t think I shared this writing here but I archived a great writing by tiredofit former ally from the Don’t Get Married Board
Here it is, its called All Men Should NOT Marry
Young men shouldn’t marry… because they have their talents, dreams, and future to utilize. Women will marry young men as a sort of “down payment”, a future retirement plan.
Old men shouldn’t marry… because of their assets and wealth to be taken, and older women resemble mummies. Young women marry old men for the money when he dies.
Poor men shouldn’t marry… because they will forever remain a wage slave, working, working, working, until the day he dies or retires in his sixties. If she divorces, he is enslaved to child support payments and often kicked out of his own house.
Rich men shouldn’t marry… because most of the women will be gold diggers. During the marriage, she will siphon off much assets and wealth her way. If a divorce comes, she will take off with a good chunk of the cash.
Men with dreams shouldn’t marry… because the wife will stomp on those dreams and say that your purpose on Earth is to please her. You should either be pleasing her or making money for her to spend. Dreams are for children, dear.
Men without dreams shouldn’t marry… because all the pleasures you take in life, be it fishing, hunting, gaming, motorcycling, or football, will be diminished greatly if not removed entirely. Your hobbies become ‘guilt trips’ while your wife’s hobbies become ‘quality time’.
Religious men shouldn’t marry… because marriage has nothing at all to do with being religious. Jesus didn’t marry. Monks don’t marry. Churches are not men’s friends. Every church allows tons of divorces including Catholic Churches (under the skyrocketing annulments).
Non-religious men shouldn’t marry… because you are getting married to the government. If you say, “That is absurd! Married to the government? Ho ho! I am married to my woman!” then watch how the State falls upon your head when a divorce comes. “But I will never become divorced!” Then you get to remain in the Government sanctioned sex program that is called “Marriage”. What! You don’t think it is a government program? Try having sex outside of marriage. You may get away with it for a while… until a child appears and you get slammed with child support. You could co-habitate, yes, but the state will declare you two married and then you become “institutionalized” into marriage. Threats to the government sex program, i.e. marriage, such as prostitution is attacked and removed at every point. And the reason why the “free sex” exists out there in the first place is for the women, not the men, which is why media and even men say that getting laid is ‘getting lucky’ as if women have bestowed a favor on the guy.
What does all this mean?
It means DO NOT MARRY. It is not because women have a self-interest in regards to marriage. It is because male interests in marriage have been legislated out of existence. In Church, male interests have been moralized out of existence (while her interests are extolled).
Culturally, you will always be seen as a loser. Despite the gain of fame or wealth, you still remain a loser… only a USEFUL loser. Society will re-configure itself so that women are right… always… and forever… If a law says women should go to jail for murder… well, the courts will say, “She was distressed. It could not have been her fault,” and behold how the woman goes free. If a woman is in an argument, society and everyone will shift so the woman, in question, is right. If religion contradicts women, those parts of the religion will be left out. If history contradicts women then history will be re-edited so women are right. If Nature contradicts women (STDs, cervical cancer, can’t have children when 40), it is declared a “social crisis” and scientists are set to task of “fixing” the problem.
Not marrying won’t make you free and happy. But it will keep you from the shackles. You may think being lonely and single is misery, but it is paradise compared to the TRUE MISERY of marriage.
@Social Tags
Read and observe before you speak any further. Just soak in the information and do your research and you will understand.
But if you suggest we all hold hands and sing kumbaya. As solomon said above. You cannot stand on the sidelines:
Proverbs 25:26
Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.
And if you recount the story of Rahab and other stories like it. If you stand on the sidelines and not enter the fray against evil and sin. Which in this case manifests as feminism. You deserve to be punished with the whole group due to your complicity in their collective guilt.
And again with the prophets of old. If you fail in your duty to deter people from sin and encourage repentance you will be responsible for their blood.
To see the evil occurring and not doing anything about it to put a stop to it. You are basically aiding and abetting evil.
@Social tag
Read, absorb, observe. Do you research. And see that your experiences are not the norm and the exception to the rule.
For those that aren’t aware of what the problem is with marriage…
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshha4LnH167phi0Z1VT
One very good reason to not marry in the current environment.
And I note the fact that you appeal to the title “Christ”, rather than to the Risen Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, smells a little bit of that stinking Churchian sulfur.
Good catch V. Possible you’d made that observation before and I missed it but that is a sneaky insidious way The Personal Jesus (TM) gets worked into the lexicon of the churchian without saying The Personal Jesus.
VD wrote, And I note the fact that you appeal to the title “Christ”, rather than to the Risen Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, smells a little bit of that stinking Churchian sulfur.
empathologism, Good catch V. Possible you’d made that observation before and I missed it but that is a sneaky insidious way The Personal Jesus (TM) gets worked into the lexicon of the churchian without saying The Personal Jesus.
Until one can utter ‘Risen Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth’ (TM) in Tongues (TM) and translate into written human language, you’re just speaking Churchian (TM). And you should also add ‘Sent by the Father (TM), Born of a Virgin (TM), Crucified by Pontius Pilate (TM), Raised on the Third Day’ (TM) in your title. We want to avoid that Persona Jesus (TM).
Also, to avoid being Churchian (TM) we should probably also not Marry (TM), have Children (TM), develop a Career (TM), Vote (TM), own Property (TM), and read the Bible (TM). In other words, to avoid the Personal Jesus (TM) it is best to just be a celibate Monk (TM) living in a Cave (TM) while we wait for the Apocalypse (TM).
The motto of life for followers of The Way (TM) is now:
@Hannah,
Thanks for sharing what you have learned. Thanks for the warnings about Ken Nair & Loren Cunningham.
@vascularity777
How do we put them out of business?
I wish there were an easy answer. Alternatives to the present-day divorce/alimony industry are not thinkable within the mainstream. The first step must be to make them thinkable, by changing the minds of more and more people. We could do with a professional PR campaign, but without that, the slow spread of Manosphere knowledge is a start. Ultimately the goal would be to legislate better arrangements.
I am horrified by the accounts of sermons in American churches. Fathers Day services where men are chastised from the pulpit, while leaning over in shame and getting their backs rubbed by their wives.
For one thing, Fathers Day and Mothers Day are inventions of the greetings card industry, not a part of the Christian calendar.
Secondly, a man should sit up straight and face his accuser as he is examined for the speck in his eye. He should be assured that, even if the accusations have some merit, the beam in the pastor’s eye is much larger. He should hold his wife’s hands so she cannot “rub the criticisms in” while ostensibly comforting him.
There is no excuse for the demonization of men in church. If this nonsense cannot be stopped, go to a different church: a Catholic one if necessary.
rustylanser
Women see being known as christian as a status marker. People still think a good place to find a good woman for marriage commitment is at a church. Women know this to and sense they feminised it for their comfort it is just a label and nothing more to them. Like a Coach purse or lipstick. Just like children are a status marker to being a mother.
>> There is no excuse for the demonization of men in church.
It is very disturbing to me to realize that the churches and even conservatives in general all turn on me the moment there is a dispute between me and my wife. You hear all that pro-family talk and think… hey… these guys care about what I care about. But in the clutch, they will all say nothing when a man gets thrown to the dogs. They will talk up manliness and male leadership, but it is all qualified by a woman’s happiness at some point. It’s all battle-space preparation so that when she decides to bail, you can “step up” and “take responsibility.” There’s a seat on the back pew for you to lean over and beat your breast every Sunday and be an object lesson for the rest of the herd.
All of that stuff in the New Testament… the only reason it’s there [as far as they are concerned] is so that the man can be discredited. “Well of course she couldn’t submit to you– did you make her feel safe? Did you make her feel loved? Did you put her first? Did you humble yourself like Jesus did? Did you lead her right?” It only takes one “no” to get her a free pass on everything the bible directs to her. And if you speak up on this… you clearly are bitter… you have an axe to grind… you are full of unforgiveness… you are pitiable. You are standing up waving a big red flag that says, “I have excommunicated myself.”
I’ve noticed that allot of MRAs are arguing from the feminist perspective. Basically that Rights and Power are social constructs that can be arbitrarily defined. They have a tendency to not understand how the traditional social order is a natural function of human nature and biology. MRAs accept the feminist frame that society is “top down”. That power is not something inherent in the individual man. That authority does not originate in the compete man.
If the Patriarchal order is to ever be restored, it won’t come about through a Ghandi type passive resistance. It will come about when Good Men refuse to give up their God given charge to lead their families, and force the Government to sign a Magna Carta recognizing that each person has the right to their own person.
A woman has the right to cede her own autonomy to a man for her own benefit. She is not the property of the Government.
Moses didn’t beg Pharoh, he was exercising his authority that is from God when he said “let my people go”.
Liberty, Family, and Masculinity
I like the original concept of the constitution and freedom. basic rights for each man with no man having priviledge or handicap. As an MRA type I do not want more government but less or have government applied the same to all. An example would be say a hate crime only white people can be charged with hate ,wrong. It is every body or no body. Why is it a crime to seperate a child from his mother but business as usual to remove a father,wrong eaither both as harshly as fathers or both as needed as mothers. The latter will do more to end this madness than all of the various survival techniques used in the manosphere.
LFM
I’ve noticed that allot of MRAs are arguing from the feminist perspective. Basically that Rights and Power are social constructs that can be arbitrarily defined.
Could you please name some of these MRA’s ?
They have a tendency to not understand how the traditional social order is a natural function of human nature and biology.
In the larger society, yes. Within the community of men who have learned Game, no. Again, could you name some of these MRA’s? Because in my experience, the people who deny human nature tend to be blank-slate thinkers, and those who deny biology tend to be feminists.
MRAs accept the feminist frame that society is “top down”. That power is not something inherent in the individual man. That authority does not originate in the compete man.
They do? Really? Where do you see this? Did you read the original post? Do you understand what MGTOW means? Do you understand what the reform-minded MRA’s actually want?
Have you heard of the psychological concept called “projection”?
Most likely a churchian type that that believes in churchianism and not reality. He will be a beneficiary of what men in the trenches bring to the table. The traditional conservatives today have no idea where traditional values come from and how and why they were even taught. They are not of the same material as the men that built the society they think they are leading. A PUA is doing more for society than any churchian marrying some slut and pretending to be godly and christian.
What is the manosphere?
The place I come to to get away from the constant drama created by and for women…
the following bookz ought be included in da manosphere– in da community of eternal soulz lzozozlzzo
THE ETERNAL MANOSPHERE
have ye not realized taht the feminist movement was created
to destory da great BOOKS FOR MENZ?
then why do so many of ye
agree with the feminist movement
and exile da great books 4 menz?
The renaissance hath begun.
As Athena called Telemachus to adventure–to sail forth and learn the news of His True Father Odysseus, so too does GBFM call upon ye to man up, sail forth, and learn the news of your true Fathers.
Like Hamlet you came of age in a world where your father–THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN–had been murdered. Where they had been debauched, debased, bernenekfified out of the fiat-debt curriculum. And just as Hamlet’s Father called upon Him to Avenge his Death and Set the World Right, so too do I call upon all of ye buton-mashing gamersz and manboob betasz churchians to Man Up and Honor Your True Fathers.
Like Odysseus’s son Telemachus you came of age in a house occupied by false suitors trying to buttehxt your mom Penelope alongside your future wife, deosuling her faster than Bill Bennett can gamble away a million dollars in Vegas. You came of age in a home absent of your true Father–Odysseus and THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.
Like Telemachus and Hamlet, you were born to know of your Fathers and do the work of your Fathers, as did Jesus. And like Jesus, you were born into a fallen world occupied by arrogant neeoconth Scribes and Pharisees, lorded over by intellectually-indifferent Pontius Pilates, ruled by mobs (and female prison wardensz lzozlz) who vote to set the murderer free, while sending Jesus to die upon the Cross.
But all of that was then, and This is Now.
Do not fail to Honor your Fathers by neglecting to live for the Classical, Epic Honor that so many of them not only Lived for, but Died For.
Do not turn away from the vast Gifts they bequeathed you with–THE GREAT BOOKS AND CLASSICS.
Begin today, begin today, all ye fanboyz mashing buttonz in your single-mom’s basements, all you PUA artsitsz trying to get your occkas wet in sterile bungholez and sterilized ginaholez made sterile by the fed’s before and morning after pillz. Begin today, all my fatherless, ritalin-addicted, gold-farming sons and READ the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.
Learn of the HONOR of your FATHERS form Achilles and Moses on down. The tiny-cckcoaaks white-knighting Churchians will scowl and stamp their feet and scream at you that Jesus cam to Abolish the Law, while Jesus himself stated that He came to Fulfill it.
When you were a child ye partook in childish things–in mashing buttons in your meaningless videogamez.
But now that you are a Man, it is time to Man Up, which does not mean marrying a babebrnekified beenrnakified butethxted, desouled, single monz, but reading THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.
Begin today my firendz. BEGIINZ TODAYZ.
I propose that a renaissance in the Great Books and Classics is needed so as to re-instill a more traditional Code of Honor which will enrich the lives of men, women, and children, and liberate us all from the debt-financed debauchery, deconstruction, and debasement.
All men should begin immediately by reading the following books which the central bankers and their fellow churchians hate, fear, and detest:
0. THE BIBLE
1. Homer’s Iliad
2. Homer’s Odyssey
3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
4. Virgil’s Aeneid
5. Socrates’ Apology
6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
7. Plato’s Repulic
8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
9. Aristotle’s Poetics
10. Dante’s Inferno
11. The Declaration of Independence
12. The Constitution
13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
15. Newton’s Principia
16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
26. THE BIBLE
And as men are reading the Great Books for Men, they must start enacting their principles in the living world, so as to exalt our legal system and universities, for it is not enough to think and read, but virtue is ultimately defined by *action*.
Dear Matt King,
You write,
“To survive it needs:
1) A less idiosyncratic and cutesy name (or adjoinage) — rubrics set the tone and are of hidden importance and influence
2) A clearer intellectual foundation and a deeper grounding in foundational principles
3) A positive mission, rather than just reacting negatively to the culture. A renaissance of manliness for its own sake, not because it is bitter about being treated a certain way. (i.e., MRA and MGTOW need not apply).”
Sounds like you are setting up to pillage da GBFM’s GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN’Z RENAISSANCE!
Hey Matt–why do you spend so much time raging against the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN?
All men should begin immediately by reading the following books which the central bankers and their fellow churchians hate, fear, and detest:
0. THE BIBLE
1. Homer’s Iliad
2. Homer’s Odyssey
3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
4. Virgil’s Aeneid
5. Socrates’ Apology
6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
7. Plato’s Repulic
8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
9. Aristotle’s Poetics
10. Dante’s Inferno
11. The Declaration of Independence
12. The Constitution
13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
15. Newton’s Principia
16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
26. THE BIBLE
@Social Tags
After your sister blew the whole football team and came running to you crying, those were tears of embarrassment. She had no remorse for how her future husband would feel. Women have no empathy for men. Your compassion is not reciprocated. When your wife cheats on you, your sister will be there supporting team woman, telling you that its your fault that she didn’t feel loved (cocked) enough.
@GBFM
You do understand that the one book that you capitalize would condemn many of the other books as texts that support witchcraft and demonology?
1. Homer’s Iliad
4. Virgil’s Aeneid
2. Homer’s Odyssey – Veneration of false gods and deities
13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
Dante’s Inferno – Adding to the bible, false information about the spiritual realm, passing off one’s personal beliefs as being divine
19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet – Necromancy, Talking to the dead
I personally could care less. However trying to say that this guy is a blowhard for not liking pagan and secular texts just doesn’t sit right. If you don’t like Greek myths you’re not an enemy of mankind.
Dear FuriousFerret says:
“May 17, 2013 at 1:14 pm
@GBFM
You do understand that the one book that you capitalize would condemn many of the other books as texts that support witchcraft and demonology?”
Dear FuriousFerret , where does the Bible condem Socrates reason and humility or Homer’s Honor? Please stop reguritating the lies your feminist churcian minsisters blinded you with.
I’m getting pretty tired of all you churchians attacking Homer based on what your feminist preachers taught you.
Buttoccking and asscocking and fornicating and extramirital blowjobs and debt and debauchery are fine with you FuriousFerret, as you spend all your time perseucting Homer’s Honor while setting all the buttcockerz free to buttcock your future wife and the future potential wives of your brothers.
In the BIBLE there is hypergammy, polygamy, and slavery galore FuriousFerret.
Are hypergammy, slavery, and polygamy Holy entities to you FuriousFerret?
Why do you hate Homer and Virgil so much?
Would Jesus have hated Odysseus’s honor and Socrates’ reason?
Why do you shit all over Dante and Milton?
What do you Churchians suggest we read instead? Blogs which never mention the Great Books, nor Classics, nor Bible?
so you can see how it is that the Churchians
have lead the crusade against MAN’S HONOR
against MAN’S NATURAL RIGHTS
against MAN’S EXALTED MYTHOLOGY
against the HOMERIC FAMILY
against VIRGILIAN familial loyalty
against DANTE’S POERTY
agaisnt MILTON’S BEAUTY
as the churchians rejected the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
as the churchians rejected the vast and great heritage their
BOLD FATHERS LIVED AND DIED FOR
as the butthexting, fanboy, ignorant churchians rejected the vast and great heritage their
FATHERS BOUGVHT AND PAID FOR
WITH BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS
all so as to become a JUDAS against the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
and join the butthetxing feminist famboys
in the deconstruction and desecration of the WEST
ye shall know them by their fruits
and the fruit of FuriousFerret’s hatred of HOMERIC HONOR
is now manifested in the destruction of the family
and the death of FATHERHOOD
and the churchians then scratch their head
and ask, “why is it all declining wahaha wahh waahha?”
like the thirty year old woman
who asks two questions:
“Where have all the good men gone?” and
“Why is my butt sore?”
so too does the chruchain ask
“where have all the families and fathers gone?” and
“why is my butt sore?”
it’s because they chose to ignore
that higher, greater shore
where our FATHERS left treasures galore
the MYTHOLOGY and HOMERIC, BIBLICAL LORE.
Everyone witness
FuriousFerret hated on the GREAT BOOKS AND CLASSICS
more than any feminist did on this blog
or any other blog today anywhere.
I challenge anyone to find any instance
of any feminist hating on Dante, Milton, Homer
and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
more than FuriousFerret did here today.
And all ye who wonder why the soul of marriage hath been destroyed
And why honor is gone from male-female relationships
It is because
FuriousFerret and the legions of churchians
will it so
Teaching that Jesus came to Abolish the Law
of our fathers
and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ
while giving fenmisnist famnboy buttehxtingz a
free pass,
sacrrfifcing your future wife’s soul
on the altar of her ass
lzozozllzoololzlzlozoz
Look all I’m saying is that you don’t have to hold up classic lit as a sacred cow and that Jesus himself would condemn works such as the illiad simply because it glorifies false idols,gods and witchcraft.
‘You shall have no other gods before me.’ Exodus 20:3
I’m not a churchian, I don’t even go to church. I do however dislike hypocrites and whackos. If you’re going to call out Matt for not liking your taste in books, then maybe you should look at some of your own hypocritical beliefs.
Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like classic lit?
I get it. The classic have some very good time honored ideas but that doesn’t mean I have to shallow everything thing they say. It’s like a Slayer fan going apeshit when somebody says that Slayer sucks.
“FuriousFerret says:
May 17, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Look all I’m saying is that you don’t have to hold up classic lit as a sacred cow and that Jesus himself would condemn works such as the illiad simply because it glorifies false idols,gods and witchcraft.
‘You shall have no other gods before me.’ Exodus 20:3”
Ummmm Exodus 20:3 is Yahew speaking, not Jesus. Jesus wasn’t born yet. Please read the Bible?
Where is the witchcraft in the Iliad?
You write, “Look all I’m saying is that you don’t have to hold up classic lit as a sacred cow.”
Who said you had to do anything? It’s a free country, you can butthext, tape it secretly, and the Weekly Standrardth will laud you as heroic.
All I am remarking on is how
hilarious it is
to witness fanboys attacking the GREAT HONOR of their FATHER’S EXALTED HERITAGE
and then negging women to get them to spread their pre-buttcoked buttcheekzz
instead of honoring the HONOR OF OUR FATHERZ.
You ask, “Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like classic lit?”
Why not ask, “Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like Jesus?”
Why not ask, “Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like THE SOUL OF THEIR FATHERS?”
Why not ask, “Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like THE HEROIC MEN OF ALL MEN?”
Why not ask, “Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like THE HEROIC MYTHOLOGY OF THE GREATEST MEN WHO EVER WALKED THIS EARTH?”
Why not ask, “Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like GOD?”
Why not ask, “Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like COURAGE, HONOR, COMMITMENT, LOVE, STRENGTH, BEAUTY, HONOR, AND WISDOM?
For the soul of THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN is COURAGE, HONOR, COMMITMENT, LOVE, STRENGTH, BEAUTY, HONOR, AND WISDOM.
Why not ask, “Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they like to buttehxt and tape it secretly?”
There you fanbabies go again with “all is good lzozozl it’s all good all is good Jesus saves the buttehxterz who believe and sentences Homer to Hell lzozlzzolzlzloz” even though Jesus stated the very opposite. lzozlzlz
go ahead
hate the classics
hate the great books for men
your generation will be lost
butthetxing away the family will be the cost
but tomorrow’s generation will raise the noble pen
lzozlzlz
@Rollo “Every time I read GBFM it makes me think of Dave Chapelle parodying Lil’ Jon. Random spatterings of incoherent lololzzzllozz, butthex, ”
THAT IS TRUE & FUNNY !!!!!!!!!!!!
Let it be forever known
That after the Great Books and Classics
were deconstructed and debauched
and exiled from our schools and universities
and churches
and replaced with feminism butthcockingz
Let it be known
that the furiousferrett fanboyz gave up
without a fight
and gleefully dismissed the ILIAD and the GREAT BOOKS and the BIBLE
saying wahaha wahahah wahhaha
wahahaha wahhha wahahaha
“Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like Homer, Plato, the Bible and CLASSIC, EPIC MYTHOLOGY, and the SOULS OF THIER FATHERSZ?” wahahah whahahaha wahaha whaha
“Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like the GREATEST THAT HAS EVER BEEN THOUGHT
AND SAID?”
waahhaha whahaha whahaha
“leave us alonez and lets us go back to our gamingz and buttcockkingsz and neggingz and weairng furryz hataztz and buttcockicncgs pre-buttcocked woemnzz leave us alone iwth all your stooopid stooopid asisnine witchcraft GREAT BOOSKZ FOR MENZ zlzozlzlzo”
yes be it forever known
dat FURIOUSFERREETTT
lied and stated there was bad, bad, evil witchcraft in the iliad
just so he could excuse himself
from ever having to serve the soul of his FATHERS
and
READ the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.
lzozozozozolzozo
Until one can utter ‘Risen Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth’ (TM) in Tongues (TM) and translate into written human language, you’re just speaking Churchian (TM). And you should also add ‘Sent by the Father (TM), Born of a Virgin (TM), Crucified by Pontius Pilate (TM), Raised on the Third Day’ (TM) in your title. We want to avoid that Persona Jesus (TM).
Also, to avoid being Churchian (TM) we should probably also not Marry (TM), have Children (TM), develop a Career (TM), Vote (TM), own Property (TM), and read the Bible (TM). In other words, to avoid the Personal Jesus (TM) it is best to just be a celibate Monk (TM) living in a Cave (TM) while we wait for the Apocalypse (TM).
The motto of life for followers of The Way (TM) is now:
Cool, this is what happened when someone reads GBFM in the original Sanskrit.
@Liberty, Family, and Masculinity
The vast majority of MRA’s support libertarian & voluntaryism
Getting screwed over by corrupt judges & a corrupt court system, convinces most people how crap government is …
The manosphere is slightly different, as alot of the owners of MRA sites tend to be disaffected conservatives ie Spearhead & AVFM
But even they too, thanks to the support & awareness about the benefits of a government free, or extremely de-regulated government, in the manosphere, most would agree less government is whats needed to kick the feminists & the corrupt police state out
Its important to remember, MRA’s are a major part of the manosphere, the manosphere is a clearing house for ideas, with MRA’s, MGTOW, GAME PUA anti-government etc., as core beliefs
Conservatives have a habit of popping up, as conservative men have always been leaders in most societies
A strong work ethic is part & parcel of being a conservative male, which is why alot of the sites in the manosphere seem be run by mildly conservatives
Ie., Dalrock seems to be pro-police & oblivious to how corrupt most cops are, he cites friendly cops as proof of all cops arent like that … lol
The manosphere isnt 100% libertarian, it isnt 100% voluntaryism, it isnt 100% antigovernment
It is however 100% pro-truth & 100% pro testosterone, pro patriarchial, pro masculine male
Men only spaces, hostile to women, have always been a haven for exposing the truth …
Why doesnt government want hostility to women? Men pay & raise most of the taxes … It would make sense for them to be hostile to women … and yet …
Billions worshipping pieces of paper … corporations the new religion, & supermarkets the new church
Adverts & marketting the new human sacrifices … families & children sacrificed on live television …. rogue paganism
How many masculine men is it going to take this time?
A society is easily changed by the truth of millions of men … the trick is not to give them a space to speak the truth in the first place …
Furious Ferrett askss “Does anybody else see how it’s insane to judge others simply because they don’t like the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us–classic lit?”
and so begins another typical day in the manosphere:
“wahaha whaha wahahahh there are no good womenz left!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh womenz rape men in divorce court!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh american womenz suckz!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh teh modern church has no soul!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh teh modern church has no moral code of honorl!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh you have to neg pre-buttcocked womenz to buttoccksz them!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh teh modern court systems hate menl!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh teh modern laws favor women and abuse menl!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh our children are growing up sick, raised on ritalin by single momsl!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh today’s kids have no disisplinezl!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh they seize take a man’s children at a woman’s whim!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
“wahaha whaha wahahahh all the womenz around us are buttcockeddzz!!”
“who cares about the great heritage and moral code of honor our father’s left us?”
Men should leave the church, give no support to the state or collaborate in any way with those who are against us.
Much easier said then done.
a friend of mine says he doesn’t care if he has a king, president or ruled by a fairy fucking princess as long as the government does not put undue burdens on the people, is subject to the same laws to the same degree as the people and respects property rights. Sums it up
Matt king is on team woman and supports the status quo as he condemns all efforts to change the status quo and preaches men stick with the same failed policies that got us into this mess
Close to 100% of the app called Christian red pill men do the same thing
@ballista
“my guess would be that Elam will be kicked off his own site by Valentine’s Day 2015. Hope I end up being wrong about that”
Every movement has several stages of effect
One of those stages, we’ll be seeing played out over at AVFM in the next few coming months
This is the stage of the manginas switching sides to support MRA’s … or trying poorly …
The manginas & manboobz who used to inhabit futrelle’s site, will perform a mass exodus into the manosphere, as they see the feminists & manginas becoming irrelevant …
Theyve already tried trolling PMAFT’s site, & I’ve seen them popping up over at AVFM
Mangina’s are a plague, which is why even feminists hate them
Paul Elam is a great guy, so is W.F Price, theyre writing is incredibly masculine
They arent very good at judging people, or their allies
Which is why AVFM was a haven for anti-gamers, even though the game & PUA community pioneered alot of the concepts
Expect to see a full on mass exodus of manginas claiming to support MRA’s over at AVFM & other chick infested MRA sites …
Heres hoping Paul Elam see’s through their whacky behaviour …
Im not holding out for supporting effective criticism against women
Paul Elam is a great supporter of men, he’s not a very good judge of character, which im not bothered much about …
Theres plenty of MRA sites growing & the MGTOW forums are some of the best sites for men
Paul Elam is great at growing the MRA movement & spreading the need to kick feminists ass
Ttheres plenty of hard-core MRA’s out there, spread & grow the mansophere, thats whats important
Captain No Marriage & Rob Fedders No Maam ftw
‘yes be it forever known
dat FURIOUSFERREETTT
lied and stated there was bad, bad, evil witchcraft in the iliad
just so he could excuse himself
from ever having to serve the soul of his FATHERS
and
READ the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.”
I didn’t lie. As I said, I don’t care about it, I simply just want to call a spade a spade.
The Greek deities are considered false gods and idols under Christian-Judeo beliefs. It simply is. They play a major role in the iliad. They use all sorts of magic throughout the entire story. The Christian God Yahweh condemns the Greek gods as false pagan deities. This is commonly accepted, it’s not radical.
It’s fine. A lot of the hard core Christian kids liked fantasy and such and I simply pointed out what I felt was a clear point in the bible and how it was hypocritical and I got the same wrath. It’s because they love that stuff and they don’t want to give it up. I just wish they would admit to what it is.
I still stand firm that you don’t have to agree with your great books. The writers are not omnipotent and are not idols to worshipped. Look at it this way, would you listen to a super fan of Superman telling you that you must love Superman and read his comics because he is all that is just and righteous in the world? Most people would tell him to get lost and think he was a nut.
Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place
Ton – “Matt king is on team woman and supports the status quo as he condemns all efforts to change the status quo and preaches men stick with the same failed policies that got us into this mess”
Matt is a raging idiot, we need to kick, women, feminists & manginas & government out
Centuries of men dying in coal mines & battle fields & these fucks havent learnt a god damn thing …
What idiots like Matt dont realise is men managed to DESTROY GOVERNMENT BEFORE
& men will do it again …
Heres a hint …
Women are parasites
Women create manginas
Manginas create government
Government gets women to murder millions of infants …
Government convinces women to chemically castrate themselves in the millions, by calling it birth control & contraceptive
Government convinces women theyre oppressed because women have tons of leisure & free time & privilege … even though men do most of the work & men do most of the dying …
Government convinces women not to stay with men who allowed women to have tons of leisure & free time & privilege
Once the women are no longer able to pro-create or give birth, because they no longer know how to respect & honour men
& women have chemically castrated themselves through birth control, so they cant give birth or bond to their children
Government see’s the population rate unable to replace itself & as a result unable to defend itself
Government then slaughters millions of men
Men see what a bunch of traitors & cowards, women, manginas & government are
Man destroys government, puts women back in the kitchen & slaughters millions of snivelling useless manginas
All of this has happened before … ie the fall of rome, the greeks, Sparta rise up …
We need to stop women & government, before they reach the slaughter millions of men
The church would not survive if men read Homer, the stoicis and the like. A small dose of pagan inspired masculine pride would crush the church and put countless priests, pastors, preachers, theologians and the like out of work. These are, for the most part, weak men not capable of productive work.
As far as I can tell the church, and preachers etc have been against masculine strength in pride since shortly after the disciples died. They for damn sure been the enemy of strength in pride for my life time
Dear Ton,
“Ton says:
May 17, 2013 at 5:46 pm
The church would not survive if men read Homer, the stoicis and the like.”
‘Tis exactly why the churchians such as FuriousFerrett castigate, impugn, and condemn Homer, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Dante (a Christain), and Milton (a Christian) while giving all ther fellow churchian buttehxterz a free pass.
FuriousFerrett is the *reason* men have lost their classical code of honor and the sacred family, as FuriousFerrett tries to transform Jesus into some corrupted, asinine form of magical witchcraft which heals his sore butthozlzkzizozl.
While Jesus loved Dante, Milton, and Homer and MEN, FuriousFerrett hates them all and accuses them of witchcraft.
As far as I can tell the church, and preachers etc have been against masculine strength in pride since shortly after the disciples died.
It was so only after XII century. Before that, Western Christianity was very masculine, the way Orthodox Christianity is today. Read “The Church Impotent”
http://www.podles.org/church-impotent.htm
“”I’ve just been looking through your yahoo answers profile (and your incredible 76% best answers from 58 answers””
-76% via yahoo answers is much more than I would give the general public credit for.
Thanks imnobody, I’ll take your word for it.
@ Social Tags
“Interacting with my actual daughters and my actual wife keep me from believing the hype and ideology that gets passed around here as fact.”
Interacting with your daughters an actual wife makes you a very lucky man. I’m happy you were never forced to experience the hype and ideology that gets passed around here as fact. If you had you would be far more realistic. I wouldn’t wish you or any other good man to experience the hype and ideology that gets passed around here as fact. I wouldn’t wish it on any man. Unfortunately I’m not as blessed as you. I have no daughters and no loving wife to interact with.
You see, circa 2013 there is a high degree of probability my loving would be wife spent her 20’s steeped in tasty sins whilst riding a ferrris wheel of men. In doing so she parceled her youth away and formed habits though her experiences with real people. And now that she is done riding said tasty Ferris wheel, she is ready for me, the good Christian man she ignored and back shelved in her youth, to pay her bills, sire her children and be her loving husband.
When she gets bored or decides she never loved me in the first place she can maxing out my cards and overdraw my bank accounts prior to her premeditated divorce her intentions of which I’m oblivious to because she he making live to me telling me how much she loves me, as she is very well practiced from staring into the eyes of dozens of men prior to me, telling them the same. Once we’re divorced, I can lose half or more of any remaining assets then pay her inflated child support payments and possibly alimony.
Should I ignore this realism for idealism?
And after I’m ruined, I can consult my Methodist minister in tears and be told I need to work on being a better husband in the future. My Methodist minister, who hired a women minister as his replacement then scolded men the very next sermon on “the evils of tribalism and it’s relation to sexism”. Nevermind the fact the Bible says otherwise:
Pingback: Links and Comments #9 | The Society of Phineas
TPM “Also note that aside from the dark triad PUAs, many guys practicing Game really are just looking to get a girlfriend into some type of committed relationship.”
This is what I have a problem with guys like The Private Man, & other game sites, they assume women are still capable of being gf’s or forming relationships with …
The GF or LTR is an outdated concept, as women today are too slutty to even consder as a short term gf …
This is why …
I recommend guys go with dark triad, as it prepares men for how corrupt & void of anything approching morals or ethics, women really are
Women today basically use stuff like facebook, twitter, pof, etc., to find men to whore around with
Basically if a woman uses facebook, or a social media addict, she’s a grade a slut
Christian women are no exception
The only way to prepare men today, is to tell them the horrors of girl game & prepare them to use dark triad game, & dread game
Women are so depraved today, even normal game isnt enough to compete with the hordes of dicks & cocks on facebook, women use as substitutes for a real family …
What most men dont get, women are proud of being cum buckets, they see it as being street smart & savvy if they manage to bang a drug dealer & a 3 some with the local black guys she hangs around with …
For young men, who want to date women, THIS is the sort of marketplace men have to deal with
As a PUA I’d advise men to save & ex-pat or surrogacy, as it requires alot to stomach even the low count women today
Most women today consider low count as, sleeping with two or three different men a year
At that rate a 18 or 19 year old girl, has slept with over 30+ men by the time they hit 30
Do you really want a gf with that much of a notch count? Most relationships today are basically FWB until she finds new cock on facebook …
Use dark triad game, & dread game, & stop wasting your time trying to turn a slut into gf or a long term relationship
Women today want to be pumped & dumped, before they want a relationship
Sex & being a slut, is the priority for most women today
I advice men to either be prepared to pump & dump most women, or go ex-pat if you want to find anything close to a gf or a relationship …
Dating is outdated, women dont want to be romanced by alphas, they want cock first, relationship when they hit the wall …
Furtherng my point, women today are basically criminals, feminists have normalised criminal female behaviour …
Young women train violence and criminality into young men
“Since the 1960s, normal male behavior has been increasingly criminalized while criminal female behavior has been increasingly normalized.
This process is known as ‘feminism,’ and includes legal restrictions on politically incorrect speech, redefinitions of ‘harassment,’ and so on.
Feminism makes it illegal simply to exist as a man. The flip side is that crimes like abortion and infanticide, for which women were typically held responsible, have been made legal and normalized by feminists.”
@Bluedog,
Thanks for the insight and opinion. I think you explained MGTOW pretty well. Sometimes I get the feeling that men choose that lifestyle (?) out of anger or resentment, where as I see it as “I’ve got better things to do with my life that are more fulfilling than a relationship”. More of a passive mentality than outright hostility.
Since this has been described as a discussion, I pose a query to the group. I am a long time listener, first time caller. I’m in my younger middle twenties, a recently baptized Catholic, athletically strong and am assured handsome. I began listening to the manosphere discussion during lent and I feel I have a decent understanding of it. I am piecing together a MAP that is working like a charm. However I’ve hit a roadblock between the manosphere and the virtue Catholicism I’ve absorbed.
I found a nice girl on OK around my same age. She only does LTR’s, so she’s committed (last one four years, she took his virginity, he wanted to wade other waters to explore, then ran back to her like a puppy and rejected); she swears to cooking, cleaning, and laundry, says she enjoys doing it for her men; she’s a strong and sharp woman that challenges fairly; she it’s not particularly materialistic, wearing little to no jewelry, save a belly button piercing; trampstamp she regrets; and she’s sex crazy like the manosphere likes ’em, pleasurers; and recently came back to her own Christian faith. I’m a penile penetration virgin (for lack of a better term) by choice, I couldn’t find a girl I was interested in, mostly by the absence of my newly acquired red pill knowledge. It’s working on this one well. She likes me, I like her.
Now it gets interesting. There is another girl from the internet, she’s a virgin Catholic girl two years older than me. She’s a cutie pie. This girl has only been in LTR ‘s, most recently a four year college boyfriend that didn’t want to marry her. I have not met this one in person yet.
In terms of good wife material, number one is easily taking the cake, number two comes off as inexperienced and reserved. Number two may break her shell, but number one is dogging my heels now. The manosphere would have me develop my alpha with number one, rather than fetishize number two for her virginity, correct? However, the religious virtue I’ve come into pulls me towards chaste relationships, something number two knows well, and number one may be chased away by.
So my philosophical dilemma between religion and red pill has literally manifested itself to me. This is fodder for discussion. Thanks for taking my call.
And pua, you are tragic. Your only solution to the tragic loss of our respectable women is to nihillistically facilitate the decline by perpetuating a cock-carousel that you can personally take advantage of. Instead of playing a challenging and distinguished game, such as chess, you play at the boyish game of chasing girls, only instead of with frogs, you are trying to place your penis in them and then leave them alone. Your corner of the manosphere is the nihilistic “gimmee gimmee till I die”, instead of one built on sacrifice, sweat, honor, or love. It’s red pill atheism.
@catholicguilt —
Welcome to the party.
What is it you are looking for? One has some red flags in terms of “regrets”, whereas two likely has fewer of them. Inexperienced and reserved are not really bad qualities for a wife, so again I am not sure what you are really looking for. If you’re looking for a super-fun gal who has tats and piercings and so on but now wants to be straight, then it looks like one. If you’re looking for a more reserved woman (whom you don’t really know at all, so it’s hard to really compare), then investigate number two. They seem fairly different, as you describe them, so it seems like you really have a more basic choice, really.
Also, a few points.
First, a woman who only does sex in LTRs is engaging in the female version of promiscuity rather than the male one. Dalrock has written pretty extensively about this here. Don’t make the mistake of thinking of LTR sex in women as being somehow “better” than promiscuity sex — it’s just the slowed-down, female preferred version of the same thing.
Second, a woman does not take a man’s virginity. There is nothing of value to “take”, because male virginity is not at all valued by women. Note that I am not saying that it isn’t valued by God, but rather that it isn’t valued by women. Female chastity is valued by a significant portion of men, although since virginity is so rare today in women, most men who value chastity accept a small “n” in lieu of actual n=0. One can properly speak of a man “taking” a woman’s virginity (although the phrasing is still a bit crass), because it is something of value for the woman. Being a virgin is of no practical value to a man in terms of female “asks”, generally speaking, in this sexual market place, regardless of whether the woman is religious or not — it isn’t valued, and is a red flag if the man is older than his very early 20s because it is assumed to represent lack of access, which is a demonstration of low mate value to women.
My understanding of MGTOW::
All men used to be MGTOW. Even ones who married (v. 1.0). A man did his thing, built a life, and the woman came along and helped. But it was his life. His resources, his production.
The thing is, if you are minding your own business and living your own life now a days, a woman can’t just come in and join you. If she did, she would magically own half your stuff.
Marriage 1.0: A man owned his stuff, and a woman could stick around and benefit. If she left with the kids, both her and the kids would starve.
I think MGTOW, is simply a refusal to be a slave. And a recognition that a mans life is more than just his physical body and heartbeat, but a life is something men build.
At the risk of appearing unsympathetic, I almost wondered whether catholicguilt’s two posts are wind-ups, for the two posts seem to have more red-flag type material in them than one might think possible. In addition (and how does one acquire Catholic Guilt unless one is born to it? – which catholicguilt isn’t) why is a fit, good looking, twenty-five year old wasting his time on OKC (the bargain basement store for sluts) rather than (as a newly minted Phenian) at his local Parish Church? If I were Father O’Reilly that is what I would be saying but somewhat more colourfully.
catholicguilt
I found a nice girl on OK around my same age. She only does LTR’s, so she’s committed (last one four years, she took his virginity, he wanted to wade other waters to explore, then ran back to her like a puppy and rejected); she swears to cooking, cleaning, and laundry, says she enjoys doing it for her men; she’s a strong and sharp woman that challenges fairly; she it’s not particularly materialistic, wearing little to no jewelry, save a belly button piercing; trampstamp she regrets; and she’s sex crazy like the manosphere likes ‘em, pleasurers; and recently came back to her own Christian faith. I’m a penile penetration virgin (for lack of a better term) by choice, I couldn’t find a girl I was interested in, mostly by the absence of my newly acquired red pill knowledge. It’s working on this one well. She likes me, I like her.
Adding to what novaseeker wrote above, I have a few points. First, I agree with novaseeker that while a woman can be a man’s “first woman”, she doesn’t take anything. I’ll disagree with novaseeker that a man does indeed take a woman’s virginity, if for no other reason than the nature of the penetrative act -sexual intercourse for a man is something that happens outside of him, something he does, whereas sexual intercourse for women is something that happens inside of her, it is something that is done to her. Don’t underestimate the psychological aspects of that fact.
It is not clear to me if the navel piercing is a “tramp stamp she regrets”, or if there is a tattoo as well. Either way, while regrets can be useful in changing a person’s behavior, in and of themselves regrets are just regrets – an emotional experience. As a former bartender, I can tell a few stories of men and women who had regrets. After they’d had enough alcohol, they’d sometimes talk about their regrets. But they didn’t do anything different. No change in behavior. And this is not about “you can’t change the past”, sure, a 2-time divorcee can’t go back in time to her first husband and try to make it work. If she’s pushing 35, she hasn’t as many options as 10 years earlier. But she could still decide to meet men somewhere other than in a bar, eh?
Regrets with no corresponding change in behavior eventually can become just wallowing in guilt, in my opinion, a form of self-pity. Regrets with a change in behavior are something else. To attempt to put it in Catholic terms, regret(s) should lead to repentance – a turning away from the actions, words, thoughts that led to regret(s) in the first place. So she should be willing to act on those regrets, if she’s serious about returning to her faith. An interesting test of that would be to suggest removal of the navel piercing. If she won’t, then she’s clinging in some sense to the “who am I” that got that done in the first place. If she’s willing to think and talk about it, then perhaps there’s some possibilities for other behavioral changes. Because if you marry a woman who basically is on the rebound from some bad experience, you may wind up as just a “way station” for her to bounce yet again.
She has to be willing to turn away from previous behavior, specifically sexual behavior, that is contrary to the written teachings of the Catholic church. Turn away without looking back.
Now it gets interesting. There is another girl from the internet, she’s a virgin Catholic girl two years older than me. She’s a cutie pie. This girl has only been in LTR ‘s, most recently a four year college boyfriend that didn’t want to marry her. I have not met this one in person yet.other man
Two years older than you is not a total chasm of time. The relative age is not too important, it would be interesting to know both your ages; if you are 23 and she is 25 it is a different situation than if you are 27 and she is 29. In the former case, you are likely a recent college grad and she’s been out for a couple of years, settling down might be pretty easy. In the latter case, she’s hitting the Wall and desperate, so you need to proceed with care because she is in a stage where just about any man looks good to her – “Wed in haste, repent at leisure”, a hasty marriage can look not so good later on.
I would put the first woman on “hold” while getting to know the second woman better, if I were in your shoes, but still knew what I know now. Both women need to understand how counter cultural you intend to be: that you firmly believe a husband and wife will be happiest, and most able to function, if he leads and she follows. They need to understand that “submit” is a verb, not a noun, it is something that a person does actively, it is not something that “just happens”. And yes, that means you get some of the dirty jobs – the 3 AM bump in the night, dealing with dead animals, crawling under the car to figure out where that oil leak is coming from, etc. – because that’s one thing that the leader does, he takes the jobs that can’t be delegated.
One of the most remarkable things
is that even though the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
and heroic spirits of JESUS and MOSES
have been exiled from
our schools, universities, courts, and churches,
there is no effort in the manosphere
nor call to adventure
to return the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
to the center can circumference of our institutions
so that their HEROIC CODE OF HONOR
may once again
exalt our schools, universities, courts, and churches
witness instead
FurousFerrett and all
attacking the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
raging against the classic lit of their Father’s Heroic Codes of Honor
and then crying “wahaha wahah wahahah wahahah,
all our owmenz have been buttcocked wahaha hawhwhahah whaha.”
witness all the energy spent in learning how to buttcock pre-buttcocked womenz
and all the energy raging against the GREAT BOOKS and BIBLE
and stating they are filled with WITCHCRAFT
and must thus be expelled in favor of churchian buttcocking
while no energy is spent
in working nor striving for
the classic, epic soul
exalted in the institutions
and literature
of our
FATHERS
via the
GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ.
witness the seething h8 of the churchian
against Milton (a Christian) and Dante (a christian)
h8 a thousand times greater than any feminist
witness the seething h8 of the churchian
against MEN and their NATURAL RIGHTS celebrated by HOMER, DANTE, and MILTON
witness the seething h8 of FuriousFerrett
that inspires him to attack his brothers and the sacred faith and heritage of his FATHERS.
and then look around at all the cultural decline and rot
the decline of the family and civility
and the massive buttcocking of all your women
and ye can see
FuriousFerrett smiling
for he prefers it all
to Milton, Dante, Jesus, Homer, Mises, and Moses.
THE GREAT BOOKS OF, BY, AND FOR MEN
@catlolicguilt
You really aren’t paying attention to the new legislation beig passed are you? Society is spiraling down the drain and you want to marry? Aren’t you seeing how the red pill is spreading? Every comment section on every article putting down men is getting hammered! 50 years of men sitting on their hands and look now what’s happening after 3 short years.
Read the Misandry Bubble son. Things are accelerating now. This is a specific point in history, who the hell wants to consider marriage?
Neither women are good choices Catholicguilt because there is no credible threat of force, negative consequences and what not to inspire either one to honor their vows and you.
@catholicguilt
Enjoy your internet tramp stamped slut … you’ve earned it
I dont reward sluts with a relationship,or a house & kids
Its idiots like you who reward sluts & whores with cash prizes, precisely because you dont know jack shit about women
All your retarded excuses for the women you’ve listed, are classic excuses used by washed up sluts, when they spot a typical mangina … ie you …
The Manosphere
(1) Man up and buttthext those sluts (Blue Pill)
(2) Build a life of butthext (PUA)
(3) Forsake butthext and all owners of said buttholizozlzlzo (MGTOW)
(4) Be patient and pray 4 da buttcocking to stop (Traditional)
(5) Try to stop the buttehxting from within (MRA)
(6) Let them eat bbutthext. (Neocon)
(7) Shes only been buttehxted three times by two guys and is as good as new. (Churchian)
(8) Read the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN and restore honor to civilization via a renaissance lzlzlozlz. (GBFM)
@catholicguilt
From a Catholic to another Catholic.
MackPUA is rude but he’s right. Both women seem sluts trying to land a good beta provider and using excuses to fool you into thinking they are wife material when they are not.
My advice: stay away from these girls. You will avoid a lot of misery.
A random thought: a lot of the things that the manosphere has cynicism about… there wouldn’t be doubt there if society in general was holding both men and women to the bargain. ‘Baby rabies’ for example, would be a good thing all in all, if it brought women to be more reasonable in their selection of mates, and the women then felt an obligation to honor their half of the bargain going forward. Same goes for young men’s libido for women, it wouldn’t be all that burdensome if it was getting men to shift from teenager to adult when they felt an obligation to honor the other half of the bargain. The problem with both situations is that neither half wants to honor their obligations. A woman can end up with a man who want to honor their obligation, and a man can easily run into a woman who doesn’t want to honor hers.
That isn’t to say we’re all equal participants, or that the law doesn’t come down harder on men who don’t obligations. That is not the case. All I’m saying, is that if men and women were more honor-bound, many things that are ‘problems’ between the sexes wouldn’t be all that problematic.
eek, typo, crosswire, something like that. the last sentence in the first paragraph should read:’A women can end up with a man who doesn’t want to honor their obligation, a man can easily run into a woman who doesn’t want to honor hers.’
First, you tell us this: I began listening to the manosphere discussion during lent and I feel I have a decent understanding of it.
Then you tell us this:
Your only solution to the tragic loss of our respectable women is to nihillistically facilitate the decline by perpetuating a cock-carousel that you can personally take advantage of.
No, you don’t have a decent understanding of it. Or you do and your attempting to troll for whatever reasons.
PUA is not red pill atheism.
PUA is responding to the kind of society women demand.
No sluts, no players.
Women are the gatekeepers to sex, Men to commitment.
Any man who blames players – i.e. MEN – for the cock-carousel does not have a decent understanding of “the red pill.”
Furthermore, I have some doubts of the veracity and authenticity of your initial foray here.
Your two girls seem to be the perfect caricature of the female archetypes discussed around these parts.
In which, if you are a Manosphere troll looking for shits and giggles, well done. You’re attempt at shaming the PUA sector of the Manosphere was momentarily amusing.
Or…you’re a cognitive infiltrator seeking some way to change the discussion and divert the thread from it’s original point. We know there are actually people who are paid shills who actually draw a paycheck for doing such things. Your post here has some hallmarks of the shill…a semi-clever attempt at minimum wage-grade PsyOps.
Giving us the choice between a reformed slut with tattoo’s and the repressed, older virgin. It’s almost comedic, this caricature you’ve presented us. The “reformed” girl #1 is fun, yet committed to only sex in monogamous relationships, while the virgin is “closed.” It’s almost perfect!!!
lozlzolzolzol
HOWEVER…on the small off chance that you are legitimate and authentic and indeed querying in good faith…
Late 20’s virgin in this day and age? Either she’s a liar, or there’s something seriously wrong with her. A 27-29 year old virgin? That’s as much a red flag as the belly ring and tramp stamp on the reformed slut.
Devout, religious virgin’s serious about chastity and marriage, usually get married young (18 – 24).
Here’s what you really failed to grok if you think you’re familiar with the manosphere as you say you are, and what you SHOULD be learning from the PUA and applying it to your own life:
Neither of your girls are a good choice for you.
NEXT.
There are plenty of girls on the girl tree.
If chaste virgin is what you want to start a family with, go find one. Stop worrying about the men who are fulfilling the role of horsies on teh carousel. Worry about identifying teh womynz who are addicted to the thrill of the ride. Worry about identifying teh womynz who have ridden it for awhile and finally think they’re ready to jump off, only now they’re looking for a soft landing, in the arms of the Beta Churchian White Knight.
If you are for real, that Beta Churchian White Knight is YOU.
@Tom
Men are honour bound, 80% of men want to raise families & work
The problem is 80% of women dont want them …
I concur with Keoni
A 29 yr old virgin, is hundreds of times worse then a 20 year old just about to hop on the carousel ….
She’s incapable of having children & requires expensive fertility treatments, plus theres the psychogical issues of not having sex for over 29 years … lol
If you want to marry, ex-pat, find yourself a hot feminine wife, who gives a crap about you
In the mean-time learn to pump & dump the feminist bitches, its the only sane response to a feminised male hating society …
You need to loose the idea of women being pure virgins
ALL women are sluts & whores, this is the reality, being a whore is the new norm for women, it has been since the inception of feminism
Avoid long term relationships with women, you will have to ex-pat if you want a basic girlfriend
Thats how degraded & decrepit women are today …
Also women will find you repulsive if you’re not prepared to treat them like whores …
Women live in a whore & slut culture
Remember, you live in the curse of a secular society, where women worship depravity en-mass … get out while you still can …
@ catholicguilt says:
save a belly button piercing; trampstamp she regrets; and she’s sex crazy like the manosphere likes ‘em, pleasurers; and recently came back to her own Christian faith.
Now it gets interesting. There is another girl from the internet, she’s a virgin Catholic girl two years older than me. She’s a cutie pie. This girl has only been in LTR ‘s, most recently a four year college boyfriend that didn’t want to marry her. I have not met this one in person yet.
In terms of good wife material, number one is easily taking the cake, number two comes off as inexperienced and reserved. Number two may break her shell, but number one is dogging my heels now. The manosphere would have me develop my alpha with number one, rather than fetishize number two for her virginity, correct?
………..
Iz you crazy?
You have a certified tramp. she has the stamp. she was even tagged to follow her mating patterns and she suddenly found Jesus (again ?).
And she is a better choice for a Christian man than a woman that is a virgin (which is actually verifiable, unlike the “fact” that the other one only boinks in LTRs). and close to the age where she actually will appreciate provider qualities somewhat, insofar that is possible for a woman.
Son, dont worry about being “Alpha”, try to get the Red Pill down.
And dont marry before you have.
And know, that if this was not Dalrocks site, this post would mostly consist of obscenities.
Yeah, I concur with neither,
@Greyghost:
You wrote:
“Liberty, Family, and Masculinity
I like the original concept of the constitution and freedom. basic rights for each man with no man having priviledge or handicap. As an MRA type I do not want more government but less or have government applied the same to all. An example would be say a hate crime only white people can be charged with hate ,wrong. It is every body or no body. Why is it a crime to seperate a child from his mother but business as usual to remove a father,wrong eaither both as harshly as fathers or both as needed as mothers. The latter will do more to end this madness than all of the various survival techniques used in the manosphere.”
RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m on a posting surge…….
Although I am a Christian, I read a whole lot of non-Christian stuff. I read my bible and Christian materials, but I enjoy reading fiction as well. The John Rain series by Barry Eisler is really cool. The Iliad and Odyssey were outstanding reads when I was in college. We cannot be perfect 100% of the time. We live under grace.
@Catholicguilt:
Don’t do anything for religion. Do it for Jesus. Doing for religion leads to churchianity.
You need to consider that the virgin might not really be a virgin. But from the little I know, I would say aquire the virgin for a wife if after you truely get to know her you find her sincere. Good luck bro…..
@ catholicguilt
She has a tramp stamp? In my personal experiences ALL women I’ve known/heard of with this mark had a past. I understand its a “bullshit” or “judge mental” or “stupid” un PC thing to say. But why take the chance she is one of the 0.01% who vandalized her lower back to look cool but doesn’t sleep around? It’s called a tramp stamp for a reason. Young women who get this mark KNOW it’s called a tramp stamp BEFORE they lay down in a tattoo parlor. And they get it anyways. THAT should tell you something.
If she is one of the 0.01% make her take a lie detector test on her partner count. If she refuses you have your answer. Otherwise your average best case scenario is she has only been 15 guys. And not 25, or 50, or even 100+.
God forbid I’m ever stuck in a nursing home someday 60 years from now (hopefully I go out in style first) and see old women with a big faded out tramp-stamps on their saggy lower backs I’m going to make their lives a living nightmare in that nursing home.
@ Michael- It is in the interest of those nursing home ladies that I have a wife to keep me occupied at that age. My forebearers on both sides of the gene pool were long lived (100+ evethough they lived lower middle income lifestyles). So if I’m not otherwise occupied, I’m going to be spending a lot of year joking about their youthful sheep-ness and asking them if they still don’t have any regrets, or if they’ll finally admit that that line is a lie.
@Vascularity- True christian faith is both understanding one is imperfect, and in having gratitude for God’s forgiveness for our imperfection… that we have a desire and efforts to be less imperfect. Past actions can be forgiven if they are past actions, and not continuing patterns… most of the comments I’ve seen are not about not being forgiving, but about making sure that the behavior isn’t going to be a part of continuing behavior.
So then I am to understand fornication is a female only sin?
“So then I am to understand fornication is a female only sin?”
LOL…. that’s all you got out of the above posts?
It’s all sin in God’s eyes, yes. Spiritually it’s the same.
But there’s more physical world consequences for women who fornicate than men who do. Poorer pair bonding, emotional and attitude changes, increased STD rates, etc.
There’s a reason why men prefer virgins and why sluts and whores are called as such, and females with high N counts are called “used up.”
I am pretty sure at this point that we are being trolled.
When the manosphere becomes ‘cool’ is when we should be very nervous about its resilience as a social movement.
So that means anyone who may wish to pursue a public career as an MRA has to either cater to the masses, or have incredible charisma. Without either of those two, mens rights will fail to materialize in the public sphere.
The part of Dalrock’s triad of factions that could possibly rise to this challenge would, in my opinion, be the Traditionalists. But in order to avoid becoming co-opted by Conservatives, they must remain both independent and willing to work with others.
But the other two factions (PUAs and MGTOWs) would not be left in the cold. Just as how today they are both incredibly skilled in dismantling feminism and developing refined argument, in the public sphere my vision would be of them serving as the gatekeepers of territory captured from feminists.
@CG
I know your query was probably directed more towards the gentlemen, and I don’t usually respond to questions on here unless directly addressed, but for what it’s worth, just thought I would this time around. If you’re in your “younger middle twenties, a recently baptized Catholic, athletically strong and assured handsome,” then I’m thinking you have a lot of options, so if you’re feeling ambivalent about both of these girls, it might be a good idea to try and expand your circle of potential mates. You’ve expressed that girl number one is “good wife material,” but that girl number two, the one who you say is a virgin, comes off as “inexperienced and reserved.” This inexperience and reserve could just be nervousness due to her liking you and not wanting to mess up. Guys aren’t the only ones who worry about coming across as “cool” and “smooth.” However, if after you’ve gotten to know her better, and she still doesn’t “come out of her shell,” I don’t think that should deter you from being open to meeting other girls who are also saving themselves (and yes, they do still exist) Not all virgins are reserved, awkward, weird, crazy, boring. etc.Lol, I guess you could say NAVALT. Some are actually outgoing, pleasant to be around, and quite normal. This type of girl could be just as “challenging” and “sharp” as you say girl one is, only minus the sexual past and the “taking” of her ex’s virginity. I agree with most on here about how it’s not possible for a woman to take a man’s virginity.Whenever I hear that it just sounds kind of odd. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that he lost his virginity to her, but her actually taking it? Lol, I’m no expert on the subject, but I think not.
I concur with the posts above regarding tattoos….
I recently spoke at a young girls’ camp about modesty, purity and discretion, and I warned the girls NEVER to mark their bodies. I used Leviticus 19:28
“Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the Lord.”
I mentioned that our bodies are the temple of God… that if a synagogue or church was defiled with graffiti it would be a major upset – but Christians barely blink at people getting ‘Jesus tattoos’ these days.
I get told I am legalistic (bringing in the Old Testament will do that :)) and that I am ‘bringing out the big guns’ for such a small issue.
How is it that the world knows what a tattoo represents, but Christians don’t get it??! Prisons have tattoo removal as part of their rehabilatation programme… they obviously understand a mark on your body is a SIGN telling people where you are at.
Why would you tell the world that you’re impure if you’re not???
A tattoo on a girl shows that the girl is off track and accessible.
Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout, is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion.
Proverbs 11 v 22
Repentance in the girl in the above query would be displayed with her actions turning AWAY from the sin in her past. She needs to take out the piercing and cover her tattoo.
The woman needs to be convicted of her ugly sin.
I used to have a shaved head (perverse rebellion to my father and brother talking about hair being a woman’s crowning glory…. turns out they and the Bible were right – how about that?!) , I had handfuls of piercings including tongue, eyebrow and naval, I worked for alcohol companies as a promotions girl, I exposed my tattoo brashly… yes all before I was saved by Yeshua.
But after my conversion would anyone listen to me urging others to be modest if I still chose to present myself this way?
Romans 6 1-2
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.”
I have spent $3000+ so far on removing the tattoo I have, and I cover it in the meantime. I get mocked and labelled as representative of the ‘legal arm of the law’…. but I couldn’t care less. I was convicted, I repented, and I seek to turn 180 degrees away from my sin.
Even so, I would warn you away from the girl with marks of her past.
Yes we can be set free from our sin, but no man is under any obligation to overlook the consequences of a sinful life in the woman he is choosing to marry.
If you are living righteously, have looks, fitness and power – the world’s your oyster… go shopping for a wife much further up stream!
catholicguilt, if by “tramp stamp” you mean a large tattoo on the lower back, then I’ve wasted time.
You should be consulting with Great Books For Men, frankly.
Odds are she’s been butthexed, possibly Bernankefied. lollllz….
@ mackPUA
Don’t you think your being a little extreme? You don’t want to pump and dump a girl then try to get serious after the fact. Young women can’t want something like that to happen to them. It’s not very nice and you’ve already sent them a message you can’t take back. You don’t want to be like that as a first impression. Just saying.
Mike
Make it a first impression. Nothing wrong with it. If it is even possible to pump and dump her then she was not worthy of anything else but a pump and dump. A young woman founded on solid ground can not be pumped and dumped. players don’t have a shot and players don’t want them.
MackPUA
Ride that pussy like it was destined to be rode, rode with your pleasure in mind. Fuck her out of her fertile years to see if we can make a childless spinster. Make her have to work alone until she dies with what ever estate she has goes to the state and the dog gets to kill her cats.
See how you do that Mike. Get hard like that and you will be ass deep in america’s pussy. Goes against all male logic and beta nature but that is how it is.
Lovekraft says:
May 18, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Your comment here was beautiful. All of the different types of men are needed and have a role. I like that you understand that and posted it up to be seen.
@They Call Me Tom:
“@Vascularity- True christian faith is both understanding one is imperfect, and in having gratitude for God’s forgiveness for our imperfection… that we have a desire and efforts to be less imperfect. Past actions can be forgiven if they are past actions, and not continuing patterns… most of the comments I’ve seen are not about not being forgiving, but about making sure that the behavior isn’t going to be a part of continuing behavior.”
What you wrote to me is totally accurate. I do not yet know what I wrote that would allude otherwise. But thanx for the response. I wouldn’t want to erroneously lead any to minimize the need to not repent of sinful behavior.
Our Creator and Savior is a wonderfully forgiving God. We are eternally blessed to be permitted to once again be in fellowship with Him via His sacrifice on the cross.
@guiltycathloic, does her tramp stamp look like this?
http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/16/value-added/
If so, maybe she is wife material, heheh,..
Dear vascularity777,
You write, “Our Creator and Savior is a wonderfully forgiving God. We are eternally blessed to be permitted to once again be in fellowship with Him via His sacrifice on the cross.”
If Jesus can forgive women for butthext, tramp stamps, tattooes, blowjobs, anal, fornication, and gina sex with numerous partners while riding the cock carousel, don’t you think He can forgive men for celebrating their Father’s Heritage–the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN including the Bible, Dante, Homer, Shakespeare, Virgil, the Bible, and the Constitution?
Above FuriousFerritt keeps trying to ban classical literature including Christians such as Dante, Milton, and Jesus, because it/they are “filled with witchcraft.”
Why are churchians so ready forgive women for butthext, tramp stamps, tattooes, blowjobs, anal, fornication, and gina sex with numerous partners while riding the cock carousel, while they stalwartly rage against men who read, enjoy, exalt in, and quote Shakespeare, Homer, Jesus, Moses, Milton, and Dante?
@michael
I’ve never stated I want to pump & dump women
I’ve always made it clear, thats what women want, women expect to be pumped & dumped, BEFORE they decide to have a relationship
Women today expect sex before a relationship, THAT is the mating pattern & behaviour of women today
Any idiot who wines & dines a woman BEFORE SHE decides theyre in a relationship is an idiot
The context of a relationship is ALWAYS decided after she’s cock hopped
If a woman isnt under the impression, there’re younger & hotter models in your life, her hypergamy wont kick in, to leave the guy she’s banging for you
We’re talking about the dynamics of a slut, ie all western women …
Women use social dominance, to ascertain a relationship
The dynamics of a slut isnt decided by provision, its decided by how much lower in status she is
The lower status a woman feels, the greater her sense of loyalty to you
Basically if a woman feels she’s lower in social status, the more in love she is with you …
That’s how shallow love is …
Pump & dump, a sluts definition of love
@Hannah
Excellent posts, we need more women willing to teach REAL christianity …
The girls who were objecting, you need to give them real world examples of exactly who & why scars themselves with a tattoo
A tattoo is a mark of slavery, a mark of branding used by slave owners … it denotes a mind unwilling to think for themselves … it denotes a person with a low i.q … thats what you need to tell those girls … they will listen, if you tell them only low i.q morons scar themselves with ridiculous pictures …
Hyperbole, combined with slut shaming, is very effective on young girls …
Sarah’s daughter used to talk like yourself, before she went against the bible & tried to preach at men, instead of honouring men …
Women turn into rotten flowers, when they turn against men … just like their tattoo’s …
That should read …
Social shaming, combined with slut shaming, is very effective on young girls …
Liberty, Family, and Masculinity
Your comment here https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/what-is-the-manosphere/#comment-83162 Is the key to the end game. Short sweet and simple and not based on actions of women. The solution to feminism will only come from men and mens behavior and understanding. Women will have nothing to do with it. As long as some action is required from women we will always be in madness. MGTOW
@Greatbooks:
I enjoy reading all sorts of stuff, in addition to the bible, these blogs included. I believe we are in agreement on this point.
The post commences with a quote from Krauser in which he asserts that he is an Atheist, yet he believes that Biblical Marriage is for the best – and this from a P.U.A.! Is there a contradiction?; that is to say, between Krauser’s avowed Atheism and his Biblical acceptance?
I am of the view that the word Atheism conflates a number of very different things, and believing this to be so, thought it would be a good opportunity for me to set out the following:
1. The existence or non-existence of the Deity, was a matter that excercised the Pre-Socratic Greeks. Whichever way one decided there was certain to be difficulty: If the world had been created then there had to be a Creator, but if so, then who created the Creator? – an infinite regress was inevitable unless one placed a long-stop; alternatively, the world had always existed, but then again how could that be? This is a philosophical question at the limits of thought.
2. a. If you decide in favour of the former, then the Jewish account of creation is a possibility (even if you then decide it to be allegory), but if you decide against, then the OT (I mean Genesis) has to be false.
2. b. If you decide in favour of the OT, then the NT is at least a possibility. If you decided against the OT, then it seems hard to accept the NT as factually plausible, although I am always amused that the Roman Catholics largely seem to distance themselves form the OT.
3. What if you answer No, to 1, 2a, and 2b above? We live in a world where religion is omni-present, and in the West, religion (whatever the flavour) is Christian. The language of the KJV imbues the English language with its cadences, the average village would look odd without its Parish Church – and how would a King be appointed except through an ArchBishop – and the sincerity of the Churches adherents (though no one is perfect) is beyond reasonable doubt. At the least, a Doctrine which has proved usable for two millenium must have something going for it, and as it transpires, the Church version of Marriage meshes with the way Marriage has been understood since time immemorial. In that sense people like Krauser above so it seems to me (and I would include myself in this) are cultural Christians, or perhaps Christian-lite, or can at least share common-cause, whatever our Historical, Philosophical or just plain not being ‘a religious person’ might otherwise indicate.
I was watching a movie the othe day with the late Yul Brynner, who addressing Fernando Ray, playing a Priest, said ‘I am not a religious man, but these people need you’. It felt pretty right to me.
@Greatbooks:
I wouldn’t place Jesus in the same category as any other author or subject matter. My bible reading is one of the methods I use to communicate with our Savior. Other material I read is for other reasons such as enjoyment, education, and inquisitiveness. For enjoyment I just began a series by Robert Jordan called The Eye of the World, which another poster here recommended. I am %50 done with the first book and am very much enjoying the story. Here are some other non-fiction books that I have enjoyed:
A Dance With Dragons by George Martin
The John Rain series by Barry Eiser
Prey by Michael Crichton
Dune by Frank Herbert
The World According to Garp by John Irving
The Godfather by Mario Puzzo
Silo series by Hugh Howey
I understand some Christians would say that my reading of the aforementioned is sin. If I were to respond to that, which I wouldn’t and just ignore, but if I did I would say that we aren’t expected to be %100 perfect every second of every day.
I hope this clarifies……….
Thanks vascularity777!
“vascularity777 says:
May 19, 2013 at 10:19 am
@Greatbooks:
I enjoy reading all sorts of stuff, in addition to the bible, these blogs included. I believe we are in agreement on this point.”
Yes, me too! I have found it rather remarkable how quick churchians are to lash out at Dante (A Christian), Milton (A Christian), Jesus (A Christian), Moses (A Prophet), Homer (An Heroic Poet of Honor), Virgil, and Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton.
It has answered a lot of questions for me though.
For some time I have wondered how the feminists won so easily and exiled the SPIRIT of the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN from our churches, schools, universities, and court system.
I have come to realize that they got the FuriousFerrett fanboyz to do the heavy lifting for them and deconstruct and debuach the Heritage of their Fathers by promising them copious, unlimited amounts of buttehxtxtx, if they denounced Milton, Moses, and Dante while labeling the Gospels as “noise” and teaching that Jesus came to Abolish the Law, even though Jesus stated that He Came to Fulfill it.
Dear vascularity777,
All of us who enjoy Western Freedom live in great debt to both Athens and Jerusalem.
As Men are Losing their Natural Rights in the courts, Churches, Schools, and Universities, I ma both saddened and amazed to find the churchian fanboyz raging against their classical documents of freedom and the eternal poetry which exalt Natural Rights, including Homer, Virgil, The Constitution, the Bible, the Apology, Aristotle, and of course the Bible–Moses, Jesus, et al.
Churchians wonder why their Constitutional and Natural Rights are being eroded, even as they rage and seeth against the classical heritage of their FATHERS which exalts their Constitutional and Natural Rights.
Well, wonder no more, Churchians. Ye shall know them by their fruits, and the fruit of the Churchian Hate for the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN and Dante (A Christian), Milton (A Christian), Homer, and Jesus’s Divine Love has born fruit.
Because churchians have denied Jesus’s divine commandment to “Love thy neighbor,” and have instead raged and seethed against the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN with deep-seated h8, they now live in a world where all their wives are being buttcocked while their Natural Rights are being trampled, as they hate Homer et al. while loving, luving, loving chrichian buttehxt instead of their honorable Neighbors.
@vasc
Biblical marriage is biologically correct … as long as it avoids men working in coal mines & dying in wars … & women actually bother to help the man pay the mortgage
Being a parasite, makes for a bad wife …
@mackPUA
I do not disagee. But if a woman stays home to be with the children, takes good care of the home and husband, and the family can financially afford that arrangement, then more power to them. Mack, I am curious why you directed that message to me????
Thank you Greyghost for commenting on my comment, I enjoy reading your comments also. Its hard for me to respond to add much as I’d like because I’m on a smartphone.
In the Bible, fathers and husbands had the right to invalidate their womens contracts upon learning of them. In our society, the government has the right to invalidate a marriage contract. Government is trying to be the father. But there is only one Father, in heaven.
@Opus:
” I am always amused that the Roman Catholics largely seem to distance themselves form the OT.”
Tell me about it. Last year, George Cardinal Pell of Australia was in an online debate with Richard Dawkins. He allowed Dawkins to establish the frame, and Pell spent the whole debate hemming and hawing on important Catholic doctrines. Worst of all he suggested that Adam and Eve were wholly mythological and that they did not exist as historical persons. Dawkins pounced: “Ah, well, yes, if Adam and Eve didn’t exist then where did Original Sin come from?” Pell was reduced to uncomfortable silence.
I’m an adult convert to Catholicism. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that it’s important to make a distinction between the Catholic Church and individual Catholics. It’s the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that the OT is to be retained and venerated as the Word of God. Individual Catholics, on the other hand, tend to do and not do, believe and disbelieve however they damn well please. That’s one reason why I hang around in the manosphere: it’s vital for all Christians to fight back against feminism and the Feminine Imperative. Society will never be restored if the churches are also infected with feminism and Modernism.
@vasc
It was a typo, I meant opus lol
@vasc
“and the family can financially afford that arrangement, then more power to them”
Actually I disagree …
If the woman has no kids, or the kids have left the home, she should be helping pay the mortgage, to lift the burden from the husband
A man has the right to enjoy the fruits of his labour
Also a husband has the right to enjoy his family, which is why a woman should take up a part time job
So the father can spend more time with HIS family & enjoy his family
Men need to stop accepting the shit hand of being a sole provider of the family, & demand their wife help him pay the mortgage & help the man be a PART of the family
Theres a million & 1 part time jobs, for work from home jobs, a woman could do, to help pay the mortgage & help the husband spend more time at home …
lzoozozzl
lzozooz
HEY DALROCKSZ DALROCKZZ
i hopes datz i am not distrubing you in church on this fine sundaysz
but i gotsas tells youz DA GBFM has done it againsz and found da
DEFINITIVE VIDEO
DEFINING
modernz
western womenz
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/da-modern-western-womanz-lzozozozozozozoozoz/
Being a SAHM has nothing to do with submission. Anywife should just be helpful and loyal to the family. Even a bread winner wife can be a good wife (though highly unlikely) Many good wifes work outside of the home being a SAHM is not a checklist point for a good wife label.
@Beefy Levinson
Isn’t Dawkins clever! Makes me sick, he does. He is someone else who is sub-Christian – believer in Jesus (check out his writings on and off line if you doubt that) – and full of the most fanciful beliefs in other things for which there is no proof. One can check out his old web-site where his supporters go banshee-crazy in full-fundamentalist mode when their precious modernist liberal beliefs are challenged by the rational (I have the honour to have been banned – for life; they would have made it a longer ban but obviously that would have conflicted with their beliefs). It always amazes me that Christians have so much trouble dealing with him, such as your Cardinal. If you are wondering how a non-believer suc as myself can say such things one merely has to put it down to ‘Public [that is to say Private fee-paying] School’ rivalry – playing fields of Eton and all that. One of the many things that can be said against the Atheists is that in the void created by the death of God, Atheists rush to fill the space with all the worst of Cultural Marxism and P.C. Fascism and of course in the process are creating their own Church and with its own Dogmas and Heresies – and they can’t see it. Consider the bust up at Atheism+ where one of the Archbishops of Atheism, Matt Dillahunty was given his marching orders by the Feminists who had invaded. Cruel, were it not so funny (berating poor southern Negroes as he does on his radio show – under the guise of rationality – is not fair sport) of course he will win, because he dismisses the possibility of Faith – which of course trumps everything.
It’s not that Dawkins does not believe in God, but that he hates him, a bit like Satan in Paradise Lost. That is of course the problem with Atheism, for even as you attempt to be reasonable you find yourself merely acting as an alternative Protestant; even as you deny that you have a religion, your very denial forms itself into a belief. Silence – like Yul Bryner’s character – with tolerance – is surely the best way forward, if you lack faith. (It’s true if you believe, but not otherwise).
Actually, thinking of Dawkins, he was pretty nervous when being examined by the Grand Inquistor himself – Jeremy Paxman (Paxo). Dawkins sounds like an Anglican Bishop with his belief in Science (always bored me witless I must confess) replacing that of the Trinity. You can check it out on-line, especially Dawkin’s bizarre assertions about children at 09.21. Otherwise sounds like one of my old school-masters. Batty as a bag of Stoats. Very odd.
@greyghost
“being a SAHM is not a checklist point for a good wife label.”
Brilliantly said
It has to be said, im not asking mothers to get a career, a job is completely different from a career
ANY woman can get a part time job, & help her husband pay the mortgage, so he can spend more time with HIS kids & enjoy his children
Being a SAHM, is a recent phenomenon, most traditional women have always worked
Prior to the 1950’s, all women & mothers worked
Even today, most traditional women in 3rd world countries, ie India & africa still work
A SAHM is a product of the 1950’s it has no place in traditionalism, as all traditional women have always worked
God forbid I’m ever stuck in a nursing home someday 60 years from now (hopefully I go out in style first) and see old women with a big faded out tramp-stamps on their saggy lower backs I’m going to make their lives a living nightmare in that nursing home.
Thank you! I spit out my coffee on that one!
As a man of a certain age, I’m a heck of a lot closer to the nursing home so not as women my age have marked themselves up. But I feel revulsion and sadness at the degree to which the younger generations have marked and pierced themselves. They seem to be oblivious toward what they’re in for in their middle and old age.
As a Catholic man, I do not believe there is any conflict between my faith and my red pill understanding of the nature of women. While I don’t get into the PUA lifestyle, I appreciate Roissy and Rollo for having spoken many truths about that nature, and I appreciate Dalrock (and a small handful of others) for putting the red pill in Christian terms. I think “catholicguilt” needs to get much deeper into the red pill before he goes into relationships with women who may be seeing him as the beta bucks provider.
The greatest gift I’ve received from the manosphere is how *NOT* to be that beta bucks provider again, that when I’m in a relationship with a woman, the relationship happens on my terms, not hers; and to never apologize to my woman (and women in general) for being a man. That doesn’t mean don’t be a provider, it just means only be a provider in red pill terms, otherwise it’s the highway for me.
Regarding SAHM wives, yes the SAHM part was a 50’s thing … mothers have always worked before and since, but it’s important to understand the nature of that work. In the predominant agricultural economy, mothers worked the farm with their husbands and their children. So they worked for the family, but they didn’t go far away from the children to do that work. Read (or reread) Proverbs 31 sometime…
Now the nature of work has separated women from their families to an extent unknown in pre-industrial age times. So perhaps the idea of mothers working at the same time it’s ok for their families needs to be couched in terms of how close to the home that work is. Meaning that part-time work from home and/or home schooling should be the preferred modes of working mothers.
@ The Video Posted By Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)
Hahahahaha !!!!!
Thanks man.. I needed that. 🙂
@Random Angeleno
Yes, I fully agree with you, which is why I stated part time job, or work from home, & expressly stated she should avoid a career ,,,
I would also suggest families, save up & leave the city as soon as possible, so they can raise a family free of government
A wifes career is financial & maternal & sexual support for the husband, first & the kids 2nd
Oh yes, mothers also need to learn how to actively play with the kids, sitting them in a room with some toys, is probably the worst way to raise a child
The tattoos, especially the tramp stamps, always put out a certain message. Always a certain degree of truth in advertising
Hannah says: May 18, 2013 at 11:13 pm — great post!
Hey Michael,
Glad you enjoyed the video.
Do not worry about all the churchians telling you to man up and marry a bernankified slut, for they are the same folks who persecuted Jesus in His Day.
One of the remarkable things, you can witness above, is that while Homer’s Odyssey tells the exalted story of a woman remaining faithful to a man, and of a man reclaiming his home from the false suitors trying to buttcock his wife, churchian fanboy FuriousFerret dismisses it as “witchcraft.”
To FuriousFerrett, butthext is yummy good natural fun, while Exalted Manly Mythology whhich teaches men and women the rewards of acting Nobly is evil “witchcraft.”
So you can see that not only have the women of our generation been berankified and buttcocked, but so have the fanboyish, fatherless men who spend their days trying to sodomize pre-buttcocked women while negging them andh8ing on their Father’s Noble Heritage–the Great Books for Men.
Michael, I have a feeling that great things are in store for you. Pick up the Iliad and Odyssey and KJV Bible, and perhaps you will find a Penelope sooner or later–a good, noble, woman such as Odysseus’s faithful wife, which the churchian fanboyz hate, as they prefer negging and buttcockingz with bernanakfied buttcocked womenz, as they were taught by their feminist preachers.
lozlzlzozozoz
@MackPUA
I agree with you again. Men should be able to spend quality time with his children, weather he is married or divorced. If divorced he should have the kids half time. If married then the wife outta work to help the husband have more time with his children. Couldn’t agree more.
P.S. Michael,
That is so cool you have your own business/practice, and that you have built it with your own two hands!!
A huge part of the Church and Classical Mythology was always assuring that the risk-taker and worker got the rewards.
In fact, all of Western Poetry launches with the RAGE OF ACHILLES, when Achilles’ commander–the archetypal bearaucratic boss–seizes Achilles woman for himself. Achilles quits the Greek army, whereupon they begin to lose. His boss begs him to return, promising him untouched woman back, as well as honors and lots of money.
But Achilles points out that once honor is violated, there is no buying it back. Achilles, simply put, is a man who cannot be bought.
Again you can see the churchian fanboyz raging and seething against the Manly, Honorable Achilles, accusing Him of witchcraft for simply acting like a Man, instead of a brenankified, buttcocking furiousferrett fanboy.
The first word of the Iliad is RAGE–the RAGE of Achilles.
Moses also agreed that the boss/king could not take another man’s life, and so you will also note many churchian fanboyz hating on Moses and trying to buttcock other men’s wives.
Finally, many churchian fanboys teach that Jesus came to abolish the Law of Moses, as that enables and sanctifies their buttcockingz sesissiones, as make no mistake, the churchian fanboy is so addicted to buttehxt that they will spit upon the graves of their GREAT FATHERS–THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, just to justify their interminable, neverending, fallen quest for the buttcockingz of pre-buttocked owmenz zlozozlozo.
Michael–your sentiments are MANLY.
You long for the classic CODE OF HONOR wherein the hard worker and risk taker get the reward, as opposed to the negging, gaming, peacocking buttcockerz who just wish to bernenekifiy Penelope.
Michael–take solace in the fact that while the seething, h8ing churchian fanboyz rabidly oppose you, Achilles, Homer, Odysseus, Moses, and Jesus are all your side. And the churchian fanboyz have no power to deconstruct to desecrate the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, but only their own souls.
Best, lzoozllzlzllzoolzolzololzolz
@imnobody
The book you link to, “The Church Impotent”, is both interesting and profoundly depressing.
The feminization of the Church is apparently not a recent phenomenon, but goes back at least 200 years. The members of all Western Churches are predominantly women and children; and the Churches inevitably cater to women. The temperance movement was an alliance between the clergy and women to attack what was seen as a male vice – does that sound familiar?
Unless there is some miracle such as the revitalization of military/religious orders for men only, this feminization is not going to go away. There is no chance whatsoever of changing the direction of the Church. WIth the obvious exception of the Catholics, even ministry roles are becoming more and more populated by women. It’s the Vicar of Dibley – coming soon to a church near you.
There is no chance whatsoever of changing the direction of the Church.
Of course there is!
The great schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism needs to be healed. That will fix the Catholic part of Western Christianity over time, and fix the very different issues that face Eastern Orthodoxy that are unrelated to the stuff talked about here. Protestantism is a separate issue, unfortunately, and is much more complex. But healing the schism is urgent and pressing, for the issues discussed in Podles’s book and other ones as well.
On page 3 of Podle’s book, there is a personal note which happens to mention Homer. Unlike the churchian fanboyz, the good Podle does not lie and accuse Homer of witchcraft.
Podles writes,
“Masculinity is the key to men’s behavior as men. In chapter three,
What is Masculinity?, I use evidence from anthropology and developmental psychology to clarify the peculiarities of the masculine personality. Initiation into masculinity is a form of religious initiation. The
initiated man becomes a hero, about whose adventures Homer sang in
the Odyssey. Masculinity is essential to the Jewish idea of God and is
a primary theme of the Scriptures, as I show in chapter four, God and
Man in Judaism. Masculinity remains a characteristic of the three persons
who are revealed in the New Testament, and the Christian is masculine
because he is conformed to the masculine Son. The martyrs and monks
were initiated into masculinity, and in Beowulf a Christian culture looks
back at pagan masculinity, with its glory and self-destructive flaws. I take
up these ideas in chapter five, God and Man in Early Christianity.”
–http://www.podles.org/files/Church-Impotent/ChurchImpotent_Chapter1.pdf
I hope that all ye Churchians can see that the Great Books for Men are not witchty-witchcraft (as FuriousFerrett and other Churchians here falsely teach), but they tell stories of MAN and HONOR and HEROES and MASCULINITY.
I know many of the furiousferret churchian fanboyz will be shocked and dismayed here, but until the bernankifiers literature of tucker maxx rhymes with goldman sax, masculinity and manhood were not defined by buttcockincgz and taping it secretly. Manhood was defined by HONOR, DUTY, and COURAGE, even though chruchcianz will tell you that such entities are witchcraft, while they go back to their buettehcococckcingzlzozozlzo, as they try to exalt game and butthext over HOMER, MOSES, Jesus and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.
@James
Precisely, everything from ethics, morality, all the way to sin have all been defined by women
Why has male sexuality always deemed as immoral, & male chastity ie men who refuse to marry deemed as immoral
The emphasis on singing & praise
& then there’s the grotesque emphasis on humility & calling god their lord & master …
What’s even worse the concept of sin has been turned into a shaming language & used to condemn ppl
Instead of telling ppl to learn from their sins, to allow them to stop sinning
q
@vascularity
The Eye of the World is the first book. Put it down and set it on fire. EotW is good. The next two are pretty good. The rest are terrible, but your time will already be spent.
@Cano
I dont’ know weather to thank you or throw one of my ten pound plates at you. I’m halfway through the first book, so just putting it down now is out of the question. After this series I might shift to fiction and check out The Church Impotent.
@imnobody:
thanx for the link to The Church Impotent. And itz freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
But healing the schism is urgent and pressing, for the issues discussed in Podles’s book and other ones as well.
Healing Christianity seems as simple as heeding the advice of the Jesus character in the text, where he says “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am among them” and all that.
This is specific permission for you Christian brothers, from your own prophet, not to patronize these simpering mangina ministers or their freakshow churches which paint Mary (one of the heroes of the text) as a trashy skank single mom slut, and which feature clergy who make it their business to insult men and fathers from the pulpit.
That goes for all you Jews and Muslims, too.
The scumbag priests, rabbis and ministers who hate men, still need men. Women do not generally pony up offerings in the churches, or buy seats in the synagogues, or any such thing.
A strong man with masculine pride won’t sit through a meeting where he is insulted. Pray and study your religious books in private, or with small groups of other men, and tell these looney feminist preachers to go to hell. It’s the least you fellas can do. Quit giving these mangina losers your money, and the problem will rapidly solve itself.
@vascularity
One thing to take notice of, since you’re already doomed: The magic power in EotW has two halves: saidin (male) and saidar (female) or something like that. It’s been awhile. I might have it backwards. The male side has been “tainted”, and it’s use will cause self-destruction and madness. The female side is still pure. The “taint” functions very much like sin, and it’s a pretty good analogy…aside from the fact that it’s all against men.
It’s pure propaganda that men are sinful even when trying to do good, and women are bad. Later, you’ll encounter people from another continent whose greatest crime is to enslave women to use their good magic for evil purposes. It’s so evil that the good women decide they must let men be self-destructively sinful to save those poor, poor women.
Fiction is important. In some ways it is more important than nonfiction, but keep your eyes peeled.
@Cano:
The gender stuff in the book is part of what hooked me. I just read a few paragraphs of your blog. Wow! I’m gonna give it another try when I’m not so tired. I have found so much valuable information these past few months after discoving the manosphere.
@8oxer:
God directs believers in the bible to fellowship with one another, as you most likely know already. Because of this direction I recently began attending a church again. I wish I knew a like-minded group of men to gather with in leu of the formal church, but I do not. I am choosing to disregard the anti-male stuff and take in the correct stuff. As I have evolved into MGTOW I know I have a strong tendency to again drop out of church attendance, but Jesus will forgive me regardless.
Dear Vascularity:
I was born a Mormon but have been a practicing atheist for as long as I can remember, so I don’t know what the letter of the law says. I am sure that if I were in any sort of meeting where the hero of the philosophy (Mary, mother of Jesus) was used in an attempt to shame men into marrying the usual skank ho single moms, I’d surely walk out, and if I believed in supernatural stuff I’d probably end up converting to Satanism (though it wouldn’t surprise me if the Satanists also browbeat men into marrying sluts these days, so I’d probably apostatize from that too).
I would enjoy hearing stories of Christian brothers (or Jews, etc.) who infiltrated the board of directors of these man-hating churches and started screwing up their operations from the inside. If you’re going to go, get the message out. In the mean time, I hope you meet some bros ready for the ‘they live’ shades and can slip some red pills into the punch at the next church social.
Regards, Boxer.
Whew! What a great way to end a weekend, in the Christo-Manosphere.
I just spent the greater part of my day hanging out st a kids birthday party in. the trailer park (that bastion of single mom matriarchy). After trying too be a drug dealer for the red pill all day, it’s nice to return to the sanity of the man o sphere..i appreciate all you brothers whoo are doing the lords work.
I ask that we all say a prayer for Dalrock tonight and all Christians fighting against those who oppress Gods people. I hope this place can be a beacon of light in a dark world.
Dear God, please be with these men, and help them to advance your kingdom. Please be with them and comfort them in their trials. May more be brought to you through the preaching if your word and law. And may we be an example of radical love to a world that has lost hope. Amen.
The Church Impotent is on the reading list of the christian sphere, It has to be.
L S and M…we do (I do) and we must pray for Dalrock and the rest of us. If we all know one another better it would be better, a force
@8oxer:
My big, opinionated mouth has gotten me in trouble before, more than once. If I were to speak my mind too much at church I would be viewed as a personality who is a “divider”. I’m not seeking to be in that role at church. I would be willing to add to a MRA movement if possible, just not as a long-rangerist at the new church.
8oxer, my neighbors are Mormon and are an absolutely wonderful family. I highly respect them, although my faith is quite different. I’d like to invite you to pray for Jesus to forgive you your sins and ask the Holy Spirit to enter your heart and mind. All of us are sinners and contrary to what many Christians preach, we shall remain sinners throughout our lives this side of eternity. Of course we must honestly, earnestly repent from sins that are habitual and not lead a lifestyle of substance abuse, promiscuity for males or females, or the ever present sin of pride that many, many Christians suffer from. A common reason folks do not practice their Christian faith is due to prideful, Phariseutical Christians acting holier than thou to them.
Anyway, I know that Jesus is just waiting for you to pray to Him and accept Him as your Lord and Savior.
May God bless you my brother………
Pingback: The Manosphere Week in Review: Backwards Linkability | Red Pill Theory
Pingback: Testosterone Carnival Capitulo DOS | About Lifting
“guys prefer real women to porn, obviously”
That isn’t as obvious as it sounds. They prefer SOME real women to SOME types of porn. A 7 who puts out easily is preferable to a 10 in a porn flick. A 7 who doesn’t put out isn’t preferable to a 10 in a porn flick. A 4 isn’t preferable to a 10 in a porn flick whether she puts out or not, but if she does, she is preferable to a 6 or a 7 in a porn flick and so on.
“See, the thing is that his social commentary which he attached to his gaming blog is what made it the hub of what became the manosphere. Without that he would have been another game blogger, and a late one as you say.”
It’s also the same reason why the feminist establishment decided to go after him. They don’t go after PUAs, as long as those PUAs aren’t criticizing feminist ideology in their cultural commentary. Neil Strauss is a self-declared feminist spouting nonsense about men being afraid of powerful independent womyn and so on. Do feminists go after him? Of course not.
Meh, all of game is a commentary against feminism … lol
It’s a surreal experience reading the words of an atheists giving good, Bibicaly sound advice. The Almighty is with us in the deer stand, and when we ride, but I doubt He spends much time in modern churches. Yea I know, your church is different just like your woman is not like that…..
Reality has an anti-feminist bias.
Pingback: A License For Profane Wickedness. | The Society of Phineas
Rollo Tomassi – Reality has an anti-feminist bias.
Ironically all of a feminists biology also goes against feminism … lmao
Btw all of the christians praying 8oxer becomes a christian, most prophets of the lord have always rejected religion
Jesus being one of them …
The religion of christianity & the organisation of christian have always been major forms of heresy & subversion, when it comes to men
Being biblical & having morals & ethics is one thing, becoming religious only leads to reformed virgins …
Which is why you will always see TRUE prophets & men anointed by god, refusing to call themselves christians
There are prophets among you, but you shall not know them
Judge a person by their actions, not by their hamsters …
Also God has the whole arriving like a thief in the night thing going on …
The fight against corrupt governments, fascist feminists, & pure evil fascist liberals, is being fought by prophets & men anointed by god, like thieves in the night …
I hope you guys appreciate all the crap & activism we go through for you guys :p
This is the origin of the “manosphere.” Friends in high school, Warren Farrell, Swingers, sluts in college, Britney Spears, Tao of Steve, Harvey Mansfield, Steve Sailer, Charlotte Allen on Tucker Max/Neil Strauss, Roissy 2007-2010. The end.
@8oxer
I would enjoy hearing stories of Christian brothers (or Jews, etc.) who infiltrated the board of directors of these man-hating churches and started screwing up their operations from the inside.
The USA used to base Tomahawk cruise missiles at a base called Greenham Common in Berkshire, England. There was a permanent “women’s peace camp” outside the gates.
The camp did not pose a material threat to the base, but it ensured a constant flow of adverse news stories, and the need to watch for wimminz breaching the perimiter fence.
Some newcomers joined the camp and accused the organisers of racism, on the grounds that all the campers were white. The race issue is a lot less toxic in England than the USA, but nevertheless the infiltrators succeeded in disrupting the camp and setting it at war with itself.
Much of this story can only be found in pre-internet newspaper cuttings. The summaries online do not capture the destructive power that was evident in news stories at the time.
To this day I have no idea whether the infiltrators were self-motivated, or were planted by the CIA or MI5.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/what-is-the-manosphere/#comment-83093
James,
My experience with the U.S. RCC has been that the clergy, from the pastors through the bishops, are largely ignorant (and willfully so, at least in part), of the true horror that is divorce. It appears that all of the energy of the Church is expended on the pastoral side of the equation rather than the preventative, hence the annulment explosion since Vatican II.
As a cradle Catholic, and the son of parents old enough to have been formed prior to V2, it pains me to recognize the above. i would not have believed it had I not seen it firsthand.
catholicguilt says:
May 18, 2013 at 8:42 am
#2. This is not even a question if you value your Catholicism. Do not assume that there will be ample virgins around when you decide that you’ve amped up the alpha enough. The point is that the alpha required to successfully husband a virgin is lower than that for an experienced woman; regarding the latter, understand that you may never be able to overcome her alpha widowhood.
The problem with non-virgininal women is that they have to rationalize their past misdeeds.
empathologism mentioned the book “The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity” by Leon J. Podles.
Here’s the free e-book on his website. Start reading —> http://www.podles.org/church-impotent.htm
lzolzolzozozoz
King A writes, “Matthew King says:
May 20, 2013 at 6:45 am
This is the origin of the “manosphere.” Friends in high school, Warren Farrell, Swingers, sluts in college, Britney Spears, Tao of Steve, Harvey Mansfield, Steve Sailer, Charlotte Allen on Tucker Max/Neil Strauss,
”
lozozozozozo
note how king a includes tucker max da butthexter rhymes with goldman sax
but leavesz out HOMER, SHAKESPEARE, JESUS, MOSES, and THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ lzozozo
this is because king a truly believs
that butthexting and taping it secretely definez menz
and lying about ones height and succeteehhh defines manhood
but that epic poetry
must be h8d on and exiled from the manosphere
and then all the furiousferrett fanboyz
wonder why all their womenz have been buttcockedz
while their rights erodez
and the family breaks up
and king ahole votes
for da lying buttcockerz
lzolzozolzoozozozozzoloz
lzozo
zlozozoz
Pingback: Must a Traditional Man Accept Modern Marriage? | The Orthosphere
Someone told me yesterday of a “You can’t fire me; I quit” sermon in a Presbyterian church in Ohio.
A pastor said, Paraphrased, “As you know i have resigned, so you can’t fire me. I want to say, the population of heaven will not be significantly increased by this church body.”
He added, “most of you have no understanding of the Bible.”
He spoke for two segments of 15 minutes each, expanding upon his comments. I am trying to find out if the sermon was recorded.
Apparently the preacher already has another job.
James says:
May 19, 2013 at 7:10 pm
@imnobody
“The feminization of the Church is apparently not a recent phenomenon, but goes back at least 200 years. The members of all Western Churches are predominantly women and children; and the Churches inevitably cater to women. The temperance movement was an alliance between the clergy and women to attack what was seen as a male vice – does that sound familiar?”
I was watching a History Channel series on prohibition which resulted in a satori moment; a big Ah Ha! One of the commentators at the end, when discussing how the post-prohibition period differed from pre-prohibition period, stated that the difference was before prohibition the saloons were male only spaces, while after the bars were men and women drinking together. It was made clear that the prohibition movement, which was originally called the anti-saloon movement, was really about the elimination of male only spaces.
Morality is a real issue and a cause of disagreement but beneath the differences , the agreement is as pereneal as the grass:
What is happening here is that many people see the blue-color blue- but the color blue means different things for different people- but ALL AGREE that it IS INDEED BLUE.
Men are just claiming their long lost balls from the theif- and they all agree on that0- we all agree on that — and yes the popular belief even goes against how God of Israel has taught us-
Thank you for this wise article.
Matthew King might want to pay attention to Anonymous Aged 71 some time.
Back when he was posting as Anonyous Aged 66, he provided some details about what it was like to counsel men being frivorced by their wives in the 1980’s.
Then there’s Zed. Who doesn’t post here anymore, perhaps he doesn’t find some of the people here to be worth talking to.
Strictly speaking there wasn’t a ‘manosphere’ until the World Wide Web was created, and browsers such as Mosaic (which became Netscape), Lynx, etc. written.
But righteously angry men? Ever since the 1970’s. The newsgroup alt.dads-rights was newgrouped 20+ years ago. And so forth, and so on.
Mikediver, personal recollection by an ancestor: prior to the Volstead act, his family would go to the local beer hall once in a while, to the separate room that was the family section. His parents would have a beer, he and his siblings a root beer, maybe some food. There was a definite attempt to control men in the anti-saloon movement, but I’m not so sure it was all that much about elimination of male-only spaces.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) schizoed:
I included Charlotte Allen’s excellent survey of the pick-up community, which was only in part about Tucker Max (between her and Sailer, that’s how I heard about Roissy). I even provided the link for you, shit bird.
None of them were directly instrumental in the creation of the manosphere, no matter how many times you maniacally repeat yourself. No matter, I had studied the great books before, during, and after grad school, graduated summa cum laude in my great books honors course — prior to your ever having glanced at the Idiot’s Guide to the Classics on the bookshelf.
And, if you want to get more specific, read Mansfield. You’ll find all the salient connections from the great thinkers to man’s modern predicament, presented legibly and comprehensively, in contrast to your cut-and-paste, self-parodic hack jobs interspersed with inane internet conspiracy theory.
Matt
P.S. Regarding your mental illness, I will ask readers to pray for you, beginning with Luke 8:30 as a jumping off point.
“Someone told me yesterday of a “You can’t fire me; I quit” sermon in a Presbyterian church in Ohio.
A pastor said, Paraphrased, “As you know i have resigned, so you can’t fire me. I want to say, the population of heaven will not be significantly increased by this church body.”
He added, “most of you have no understanding of the Bible.” ”
This is probably true, but my conclusion is that Biblical ignorance in the liberal Protestant churches is due primarily to the clergy deliberately keeping the people in the pew ignorant. The less they know about the Word, the easier it is to get them to buy all the revisionist drivel and heresy that is put out for consumption in the mainline churches, starting with the acceptability of homosexuality and moving on from there.
So shame on the pastor for not trying to educate his flock on the Gospel.
@kaehu
“So shame on the pastor for not trying to educate his flock on the Gospel.”
He obviously left because the flock refused to be educated …
The average christian church attendant is a molly coddled, hyper anal retentive mangina
Or a reborn slut, who thinks the bible is her new hymen …
@Höllenhund I have to commend you on being in the minority in the manosphere who aren’t some kind of closet feminist enabler on the grounds you so accurately bring up here.
“Do you really want to resurrect this silly debate, Cail? Look, there are all kinds of people pushing for some sort of legal reform. MRAs are just one of them. What they attempt is to further their own legal interests by enacting changes within the framework of the current legal system. Hell, what else are they supposed to do? But, of course, tradcon idiots shit on them because they actually believe that men used to be “in charge” (only people who know nothing about the Feminine Imperative can believe such nonsense), plus they actually think that it’s a politically realistic goal to put men “back in charge”. Screw them.”
Yeah and it’s amazing how many feminist enablers (which includes PUAs as your following post demonstrates) like this there are in the manosphere, including MackPUA I might add (you want to bring things over here Mack, then game on). You see I’m “trolls” on PMAFT’s site (and fyi, a troll is someone deliberately baiting someone for a response; it has never been and will never be someone whose arguments get too close to the truth for you and infuriate you).
A while back on PMAFT’s site I brought up the issue of male victims of DV identifying myself as a DV survivor in an issue which came up. Now anyone with an understanding the politics of VAWA and DV studies knows that the one viscious cycle which needs to be broken is {men under-reporting->reporting figures and fraudulent studies->battered and raped men regarded as “aberrations” and facing ridicule and stigma->men shamed into silence->men under-reporting}.
Furthermore anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that this fuels the feminist propaganda of “men are perpetual predators and oppressors [of women]; women are perpetually oppressed victims [of men]”. Ergo, the best way to combat VAWA is to encourage as many male DV survivors to come forward publicly, so that we can no longer be regarded as a myth, the cycle gets broken, and VAWA gets demolished as a flow-on effect.
Yet the response I met with several quarters in the manosphere and which MackPUA has been heavily complicit in, was to be mocked on multiple blogs. My “crime” was bravely holding myself up as an example of a male survivor of in an attempt to allow other survivors a means to come forward and not feel alone, which BTW would have actually worked against the politics of VAWA – which anyone in the manosphere with even half a brain would have been able to spot a mile off. Their justification? “Men are not victims; men are conquerers” – regardless of the Everest-sized mountain of men’s bodies that model of brutal, toxic and expendable masculinity leaves in its wake (eg male suicide victims, male victims of violence, etc).
But apparently, being “a real man” is worth so much that even allowing the narrative driving VAWA to remain unchallenged, and continuing the culture of injustice for male survivors of DV, is a perfectly acceptable price to pay for it (along with Title IX and every other piece of feminist lobbying which feeds off that trope). Again, their justification was that according to them “men are conquerers” (ie men cannot be victims, which is actually blatant feminist propaganda). These are the same men who militantly reject the notion of male disposability, despite being dismayed at the end result of it and the misandry it perpetuates.
Apparently suggesting that the traditional definition of what is “masculine” is nothing more than a form of male slavery that reduces men into nothing more than performing seals (where the only real difference is a reward of sex instead of a fish) somehow makes you a “troll” and a “mangina” (of course the irony here is that using terms like “mangina”, actually perpetuate the gynocentric imperative – ie men being socially policed by other men through genitalia-based shaming).
Of course in the process of such militant tradconism, after learning I had a learning disability, MackPUA continued to call me a retard, which is actually a form of hate speech against someone in one of the most marginalised groups of men and boys in society.
Now the irony of this is that amongst the blog posts where this has gone on were 2 specific blog posts on PMAFT: http://www.antifeministtech.info/2013/05/everyone-but-mras-think-that-equality-is-a-plot-to-benefit-men/ and http://www.antifeministtech.info/2013/04/tradcons-let-feminists-define-their-reality/ .
The first pointed out that tradacons are as much against equality as feminists as both want to perpetuate gynocentrism. The second pointed out that only a fool would take feminist dogma at face value and ignore the meaning and context of every single dogmatic utterance of feminism.
The greater irony is that these “men are conquerers” tradcons rail against any redefiniting of what being male means, because feminists challenge it, even when it’s coming from an anti-gynocentric perspective. In doing so, they double down on gynocentrism as a knee-jerk response to feminism, which is founded on and driven by, wait for it, gynocentrism.
Of course what is equally ironic is the way STEM and Geek Culture have suddenly identified as “male spaces”. The fact is that there is a term for these “men are conquerers” tradcons in a high school – jocks. The fact is that jocks have always held those of us who are geeks in contempt and were for years – yet the moment feminism proceeds with the laughable claim that science and geek culture are the domains of “patriarchy”, suddenly these same jocks want to proudly claim if for themselves? Puh-lease. If it wasn’t for the feminist move into STEM and geek culture, we’d still be regarded with contempt by them.
“PUAs, on the other hand, not only directly benefit from the sexual liberation of women (for obvious reasons) but predicate their entire approach on insulating women from the romantic downsides of the feminist regime. PUAs pride themselves on giving women the experience of a dominant asshole at the lowest possible cost to themselves, but a consequence of this is that they are giving women all the tingle-inducing benefits of being with a dominant man without requiring those women to give up any of their state-supported power (VAWA, false-DV, false-rape, no-fault, CS) over their “partner”.”
Exactly. It says alot when the typical PUA response is “there’s nothing wrong with young men wanting to bang hot chicks” whilst ignoring the fact that that form of hypersexualisation is the slave collar of male disposability and turns men into little more than performing seals for the bitchy supermodel trope. But then actually admitting that would mean that the thousands of dollars of revenue the PUA community got through seminars etc, would suddenly dry up. Their wallets just can’t have that, now can they?
“This is the origin of the “manosphere.” Friends in high school, Warren Farrell, Swingers, sluts in college, Britney Spears, Tao of Steve, Harvey Mansfield, Steve Sailer, Charlotte Allen on Tucker Max/Neil Strauss, Roissy 2007-2010. The end.”
That is probably how you came to be involved in the manosphere. Since the manosphere is only a loose connection of blogs it follows that many guys came their own ways and the history of the manosphere is varied. I didn’t watch Friends, haven’t seen Swingers, did not get laid in college until after I found game, don’t listen to Britney Spears, have not read the Tao of Steve (and have no desire to) don’t know who Harvey Mansfield, Warren Farrell or Charlottee Allen are and have only heard of Tucker Max recently. I found the manosphere through a now defunct PUA/game forum and from there to other forums including sosuave and mASF. I read Style but only in connection with Mystery. I have never read The Game. I found Roissy in 2007/2008 but I had already found other red pill links such as Pook (came from sosuave in 2002 – 2005) who introduced me to the wisdom of the great books of history.
When I view the history of the manosphere I see it in the PUA blogs and forums extended back to the early 2000s and maybe further which came out of the PUA industry of which Strauss was a small part. I also stumbled across some MRA blogs (one included Angry Harry) around 2008. I found Alt Right politics around this time including Vox Day (who has been blogging for about 10 years).
When I first read PUA forums in 2007 self improvement was big and its only spread.
There is no single history of the manosphere since its a loose connections of blogs by bloggers who stumbled upon each other there own way. The wayt they came across the manosphere probably shapes their views of it. Since I came from PUA then into self improvement and politics/MRA I view it that way.
When I think about the history of the manosphere I think about Ilka’s blog (Sixteen Volts then The Fourth Checkraise then the Wingnut Musings), Cool Tools 4 Men, Pooks Mill, Vox Day, Steve Sailor (though I never read him), dusk in autumn, Roissy, Roosh, In Mala Fide (back when it was called fbardamu.com [or whatever]), Angry Harry, Mirror of the Soul, Outcast Superstar, Ghost Nation, Moldbug and many other blogs who have ceased to exist. When Ferd started doing the link roundups after changing his blog to IMF it became the hub of the manosphere from my POV. The term manosphere may have first been used around then and after IMF closed down I used Hawaiian Libertarian’s real time aggregator instead. I viewed Keoni’s aggregator as the central hub of the manosphere.
If you want to know the history of the manosphere from my POV it would be where the people I just listed came from prior to blogging?
This is also why the manosphere is better as the loosely connected set of blogs it is. The blogs I read have Hawaiian Libertarian as their focal point. Only bold and determined isn’t on his list of blogs I would call manosphere that I read. Keoni also links to blogs I don’t read but all of them can be considered manosphere. For you the central hub of the manosphere may be a different blog such as Dalrocks. I only sparingly read Dalrock’s blog because good as it is I am not interested in many of his topics. Its quite possible that nearly all blogs I read are different from those you read and my conception of the manosphere would be different than yours. If we try to have a leadership for the manosphere then where do we draw the lines? Who decides? Who gets to be leader? Why? What blogs should be included and what should not?
Its better as it is.
More for anyone interested: http://tgrwhite8974.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/the-rise-of-the-manosphere/
And http://tgrwhite8974.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/mgtow-v-mra-v-…-v-acronymists/
Actually at the start, I hated Roissy & a large portion of the beginner manosphere, which is why I stuck to my favourite PUA sites & forums
The PUA sites, & forums had alot more anti-feminism then most manosphere blogs
It was the radical MGTOW & MRA sites, which proved to me the manosphere actually gave a crap about men
As more manosphere sites began supporting MRA & MGTOW issues, & stopped whining endlessly about the gdmn economy & stopped supporting liberal bullshit
The manosphere finally became about the real issues men face
It was sites like Captain No Marriage, Outcast Superstar, No Ma’am & Dont Marry American Women
It was these sites, which created the manosphere, as far as i’m concerned
Roissy may have given the outline, for the manosphere, but it was the MRA & MGTOW who gave the manosphere its radical truth & honesty
Masculinity & our need to dominate, be genuinely masculine, our need to conquer & innovate, & ensure women remain hot to serve us & fuck will always be the greatest issues of our time
How masculine & how dominant are you willing to be, to combat the corrupt enemies of our time?
Tom White catalogued:
Heh. I wasn’t talking about the show “Friends,” which is why I didn’t put it in quotation marks. I was talking about the experience of having actual, good, male friends in high school, which contributes to a certain trajectory of manhood into the age of majority.
I did italicize Tao of Steve, but it is a film, not a book. It is worth watching because it dramatizes the three precepts of masculine attraction (though it goes off the rails with an inane romance toward the end of the film). It explains them succinctly rather than dissecting the notions to death, like the manosphere nerd-analysts are wont to do.
Warren Farrell is the grandfather of the fin-de-siècle renaissance of men, beginning with his excellent book, The Myth of Male Power (1993). The other fellow F. Roger Devlin may be another primary contributor, but I never encountered him back in the day. It’s my understanding he helped bring about the ethological terms like “alpha” and “beta” and “hypergamy” for its use by the manosphere today. (Now a cursory search for his work reveals only post-millennial material, such as his essay “Sexual Utopia in Power” from 2006.)
Harvey Mansfield wrote Manliness in 2005, and it is the only socio-philosophical primer any layman needs. Without recourse to excellent gateway books like these, the self-appointed philosophers of the manosphere consign themselves to perpetually reinventing the wheel.
You are thinking like a sub-beta. Even betas understand the necessity of leadership, because they want to seize that leadership.
“Where do we draw the lines? … What blogs should be included and what should not?” = the essence of wisdom. Wisdom means discernment and discrimination. It isn’t a massive clot of information exponentially multiplied by the free-copy-and-paste nature of the internet (are you listening, GBFM?). It is about determining the “best that has been thought and said,” and instructing ourselves in it.
Your relativism-in-search-of-independence leads to intellectual slavery, which leads to actual slavery. Of course our “conception[s] of the manosphere” are “different” from the other’s. But the point is reconciling the differences under the standard of truth rather than believing that assertions in ignorance are all one needs to prevail.
Unfortunately, assertion is more important than truth among the manly (cf. Mansfield), and this creates special problems. And those special problems creates the need for a special kind of leadership. But not only is no one exhibiting that leadership today in the “man-oh-sphere,” no one seems to even sense the need for it, much less will they recognize it should it arrive.
No, instead we get the insecure omega paranoia that resides in phrases like, “Who decides? Who gets to be leader? Why?” These kind of people are suspicious of anyone who is assertive because they falsely believe that, like them, the assertive man is only interested in a power grab. This is the slave mentality, which understands wisdom exclusively in terms of power relationships. After all, power defines the slave’s relationship to everything, so he assumes it defines everything in the universe.
Even now, the slave will discount my call for leadership as a call for my leadership (dictatorship) because they believe of course everybody wants to be king. They cannot make a separate investigation into the truth of a thing without complicating it through their paranoid suspicions of universal powermongering.
Matt
“How masculine & how dominant are you willing to be, to combat the corrupt enemies of our time?”
This is a complete and utter own goal. The fact is that as long as men embrace the Alpha-thug paradigm as the PUA community does with glorified BS about “men as conquerers” and continuing on with the rhetoric about “dominating”, the corruption will continue.
The fact is that tradcons who talk about dominant men/submissive women and the feminists who go on about “the patriarchy” are operating from the same paradigm.
When you claim that “men dominate; women submit” you ignore proxy violence, deny the notion of abusive women and that men can succumb to it. In essence, you enable feminism in about as fundamental a manner possible. After all the notion of “men are perpetual oppressors; women are perpetual victims”, which is exactly the paradigm you support, is is the core notion behind “Patriachal theory”.
I’ve heard PUAs counter that by claiming if they’re not actually being the provider and protector, that somehow they’re not a part of the problem, yet this is complete BS.
As Höllenhund put it:
“PUAs pride themselves on giving women the experience of a dominant asshole at the lowest possible cost to themselves, but a consequence of this is that they are giving women all the tingle-inducing benefits of being with a dominant man without requiring those women to give up any of their state-supported power (VAWA, false-DV, false-rape, no-fault, CS) over their “partner”.”
The reality is that what PUAs and tradcons glorify as “men are conquerers” is merely the twisted gynocentric manipulation of the authentic desire for men to make the world a better place, to fight against injustice and to improve the human condition. Gynocentrism has taken that pure desire and used it to turn men into perpetual white knights/thugs – all so women can be perpetually infantalised and paternalised; all facilitated by men being reduced to nothing more than dehumanised and expendable slaves. After all, under gynocentrism, only a woman’s womb has any real intrinsic value.
If we’re to truly overcome the current state of play, then we need to give a giant up yours to the PUAs, the tradcons and the feminists, reject the disposable masculine model and embrace all of who we are outside our ability to provide, ability to protect and our sex drives/notches on our belts.
So then who do men emulate? How about great men like Martin Luther King, Stephen Hawking (heck Hawking is a brilliant example of rejecting traditional masculinity), Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein? These are the men which feminism tries to pretend are an aberration, rather than merely self-actualised men who are in fact, when you strip away gynocentrism, the norm.
However such a move takes real courage and requires going against the social conditioning which says that rejecting our utility as men makes us less than nothing – sadly many in the manosphere lack the courage to take such a step. However that notion is a blatant lie. When we embrace ourselves, all of ourselves, we become far greater than we were and true masters of ourselves and become truly emancipated from our social shackles and slave collars.
@ Matthew King
“Where do we draw the lines? … Wisdom means discernment and discrimination … GBFM … It is about determining the ‘best that has been thought and said,’ and instructing ourselves in it.”
I agree with you that the Sonnets of GBFM, like “Da Professional Womenz Ode”, rivals and even surpasses anything written by Shakespeare. However, I also agree with GBFM that we should still keep at least Homer, and preferably the rest.
Da Professional Womenz Ode
alpha fucks and beta bucks
dat is how we roll
da butthexting cockass we fucks and sucks
and in our anuthes it doth deosul
alpha fucks and beta bucks
it is da way of da fed
to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
cuckold dose who pay for our bread
beta bucks and alpha fucks
it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
da assetts from betas we plucks
after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
lzozozlzzolzlzlzlz
cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
as da feiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
and say da great books for menz was all fools.
yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats
zlzlzzozozozo
hey king,
all your words don’t change the FACTS
that you want buttehxteetetsrz
and secrteiev secretive taperz of butthext
to define
the MANOSPHERE
perhaps it is time for you to man up
and live up to your suma cum cum lauda lotsas cockas suma cums lauda billing
that you claim with great pride
and actually study literature and history
and THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
and you will see
that sectriev tapings of butctchetxt without the girls occnthent
has never been considered MANLY nor HEROIC nor HONORABLE
but by Charlotte Allen (A woman)
ODYSSEUS, ACHILLES, MOSES, JESUS, JOHN WAYNE, CLINT EASTWOOD, AENEAS did not butthext and tape it secrteeletzkioz sceterley unlike your heoreszz rhyemes wth godlman ssax xlzlzlo
the facts are KING A
that you want to let sectriev taperz of buttehxt and fallen womenz
define the manosphere
instaed of MEN
like DALROCK AND HEARTISTE
and HOMER, MOSES, and JESUS
and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
perhaps ye can find a little place
of your own
the KINGAOPSHERE
where ye can honor and celebrate
butthext
in da bungholozlzzi
and sectriev tapings of butthext
and fornication and adulteryeieisz
and more butthext
and pretend dat you are on the cutting edge of the blogsphere (butthextospehere) zlzozlzoz
@Andrew Richards:
Excellent points. We all will never agree as this “manosphere” consists of so many differing/diverging belief systems. For me, as a man of faith, the PUA way of life is a no-go. I view the PUA life style as narcissistic and harmful the society at large for the reasons enumerated previously, i.e., providing women avenues to become promiscuous (sluts), and hurtful to the men who engage over a long period of time. The trad-con, as I was, will also self-indulgently pedestalize women for selfish reasons as well. The only way we can effect change is through the legal system. I’ve read some posts that advocate a war to tear down our system. That is ludicrous! I’d rather have our current pathological feminist system remain, rather than a war like in Syria.
My respect to you, Andrew Richards; excellent post…..
@vasc
Jeez … Andrew Richards is a mangina troll …
Vasc, you clearly dont understand what he’s saying …
Perhaps he is. From what I read above he seems to make sense. I’ll reread it another time. I’m now reading The Impotent Church book. I’m hoping for a new technology that would allow me to plug myself into the internet and just electronically absorb the posts and books. There is so much to read. GBFM, what do you think about that idea?
@vasc
There is a new technology that allows you to absorb books & posts …
It’s called a text to speech app …
You can also try NLP – neuro linguistics
The blogs I read have Hawaiian Libertarian as their focal point. Only bold and determined isn’t on his list of blogs I would call manosphere that I read.
Hey Tom, thanks for pointing this out. I never even heard about Bold and Determined until now. Excellent blog…reminds me a lot of Danger and Play.
mackPUA – Thanks for your input regarding speaking to young girls about tattoos and for your encouragement too.
I have saved your suggestions to include in my next talk whenever that may be, I tend to be a one-hit-wonder at women’s events 🙂
So then who do men emulate? How about great men like Martin Luther King, Stephen Hawking (heck Hawking is a brilliant example of rejecting traditional masculinity), Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein? These are the men which feminism tries to pretend are an aberration, rather than merely self-actualised men who are in fact, when you strip away gynocentrism, the norm.
What a forking twit! Picking men who are so far outside the mainstream in intelligence and somewhat outside of the mainstream in being patriarchs … what about us mere mortals who don’t have such brains and intellect, pray tell?
How, by the way did Stephen Hawking, a man confined to a wheel-chair, and through no fault of his own, reject masculinity, traditional or otherwise. As it happens he seems to have been a bit of a pussy-hound, notwithstanding his immobility.
@vasc MackPUA only claims I’m a troll so he can run away from the fact that he’s chosen to be a part of the problem, as opposed to engaging in deep introspection and becoming a part of the solution. In fact his claims of my being a troll are made under the same paradigm as feminists using “misogynist” as a shaming tactic- ie shut down someone through a shaming tactic when you have no valid rebuttal. The reason for this sort of behaviour, as I realised a while back, is because there are ultimately 2 classes of men in the manosphere.
The first class I fall under and from the sounds of it, you do too. The first class of men aren’t afraid to look as deeply down the rabbit hole as society needs to if we’re every going to change things for the better. This class of men leaves no stone unturned, and questions everything, both good and bad – regardless of how much it goes against everything they were ever taught to believe in. They ultimately wind up seeing the core problem, the root cause – gynocentrism (including I might add that gynocentrism isn’t a focus on women, but rather women’s genitalia) – and recognise both the fact that it has always been here and that feminism’s rise and success was an inevitability because of it.
Specifically, they come to see that the problems men face now at the hands of feminism, are merely an amplification of the problems men had which were always there – that radical feminism only exists because gynocentric masculinity (the masculinity of tradcons and PUAs) always had an end date on it and that end date came as of at least the 1940s.
They seek therefore to redefine what it means to be a man, rejecting the paradigm espoused by feminists, PUAs and tradcons alike – gynocentrism – and are concerned with a complete rejection of male disposability, and complete embracing of male humanity.
They have no interest in a false male pride built solely on male disposability and utility; they are solely interested in the authentic self-actualisation of men. The male role models for this camp are the great men of history who have dedicated their lives to changing the human condition for the better – either through social change or through lives of scientific discovery, who are remembered for their intellects and social activism, rather than their wealth and physical prowess. In years to come, I truly hope that the name Earl Silverman, is one such fondly remembered man.
The second class of men, which MackPUA falls under however, have eyes, but do not see. They hate the way society is, yet are so trapped by their gynocentric conditioning, that the moment it comes to questioning the notion of what a “real man” is, they rail against it. They foolishly believe the lie that if you strip away a man’s ability to provide, ability to protect and sexual prowess, he is automatically worth less than nothing as a man (fortunately those of us in the first camp know better).
All this second class of men see are the men at the top and the illusion of freedom they had. They ignore the bodies of other men they had to climb over to get there. Men who are destitute, the victims/survivors of abuse, male victims/survivors of violence and male sufferers of mental illness (in other words, the men at the bottom of the heap in society) are all contemptuous. If you fall into any of these categories, then you are a failure as a man to them and therefore sub-human scum.
They have shown that they can and will mock battered men, that they will militantly defend the glorification of men as “the protector” and “the provider”.
The notion of male abuse survivors getting support to get back on their feet for as long as it takes, is met with ludicrous and baseless comparisons with the perpetual victim class agenda of feminism – despite the fact that such a response fuels feminism.
The notion that male sexuality is a snare by which men are enslaved, is met with ludicrous and baseless comparisons with the feminist fraud of “male sexuality is inherently evil” – despite the fact that such a response fuels that very feminist rhetoric.
PUAs like Mack will try and pretend that they’re for justice for men and men being treated with dignity and respect, however it wasn’t that long ago that this piece by PUA Matt Fourney let the cat out of the bag: http://mattforney.com/2012/09/10/we-come-not-to-praise-the-mens-rights-movement-but-to-bury-it/
The fact is that PUAs and gamers have no problem with returning men to their caves on a road strewn with the bodies of men who fail to meet the impossible standards of gynocentric-masculinity (be they the abused, the suicidal, the mentally ill, the destitute, etc). The fact that the PUA community only further entrenches feminism and gynocentrism – in terms of it’s treatment of maginalised men and in terms of making themselves living evidence of “men as perpetual thugs” as even the like of Cereberus Alpha have recently pointed out – is irrelevent to them. After all, all that matters to them at the end of the day is their next root.
Of course PUAs owning their crap would require actual courage and accountability – which, let’s face it, is far more difficult than simply screaming out “troll” over and over again whilst sticking your fingers in your ears so hard that it practically causes a cerebral haemorrhage, whilst hoping the truth will somehow magically go away. Newsflash to any PUAs reading this – it wont.
The problem with society today, there are no honourable solutions for being a man
The manosphere points out, its because society has no honour & it no longer honours men …
Which is why there are zero socially acceptable paths for strong masculine men in society
Btw note Andrew Richards is a mangina troll… alot worse then GBFM … feel free to skip his diarrhea …
He writes walls of gibberish, basically blaming men for everything …
@Random Angeleno “What a forking twit! Picking men who are so far outside the mainstream in intelligence and somewhat outside of the mainstream in being patriarchs … what about us mere mortals who don’t have such brains and intellect, pray tell?”
And yet Edison for example had only 3 days of formal schooling. Furthermore, you’ve fallen prey to the BS of our education system. Here’s the reality you’re choosing to ignore while own goaling so bad you burn a hole through the net by calling me a twit.
The education system is designed to fail people.
The system is set up to place people on a bell curve – with a certain percentage at the bottom, a certain percentage in the middle and a certain percentage at the top.
Scoring on the low end of the bell curve isn’t what makes people stupid; believing that BS is.
Furthermore are you saying you don’t have talents or abilities of your own? That’s just it. What are your interests? What are your abilities? What are your dreams? When men are reduced to being nothing more than walking-ATMS/cocks-on-legs/human-shield, those core fundamental questions of the human experience get dumped to one side so a man can be a good little provider.
Here’s something I posted on Cerberus Alpha’s blog pointing out how the same thing applies not only with the academic frontier, but even with the humble tradie:
“And that’s the thing. What has happened with the rise of science and technology, is that not only have population growth demands subsided enough for society to allow woman careers, but fields have shifted from requiring expendable labour, to being safe enough that they in no way compromise female infantalisation when women enter them.
Meanwhile men wonder who they are because the yardstick to measuring masculinity has remained constant, whilst the sphere in which this can be expressed has increasingly shrunk as more and more careers move from a sphere of expendable labour to a sphere of safety. This just makes the agenda of many in the manosphere who militantly want to enshrine this paradigm of masculnity, sheer madness. In fact, the only way out of that is to challenge the traditional male role and reject it.
Far too many men out there are far too insecure about their own identities that they viscerally rail against it; however what we need to start asking ourselves as men is “if I take away my roles as the provider and the protector, as well as my sex drive and sexual conquests, who am I?”
When you strip away those things, you get to the heart of who we are as human beings and why we should be valued as human beings.
Take a highly successful carpenter for example. The traditional masculine ideology says his job gives him worth because it provides a living and in doing so, means to provide for and protect for his family – some would even say it’s a catch and there are plenty of women out there who “like a man who’s good with his hands”. These are the only things that traditional masculinity values his professional life for.
However let’s strip that away for a minute. What’s left? There’s his love of carpentry, the pride in his honing his skills, the artistry of expressing himself through his chosen medium as a deeper expression of himself. There’s the wider aspects of style and how society affects his style through the architecture of the day. There’s any feelings he might have of building monuments, big or small, which allow him to leave his mark and a legacy on the world. There is a spirituality to this, an artistry, a physical poetry of sorts. There is a profoundness there, a form of expression there which should never be taken for granted and should be deeply valued.
Yes these things might make him sexually desirable and when he’s good, they’ll allow him to take home the big bucks, making him a good provider and protector. However when you consider all of the above, the utility of how much of a pay packet it brings, or how desireable it might make him, should really be less than irrelevant.”
The question you might want to ask yourself Angeleno, is where that approach applies to you.
@Opus “How, by the way did Stephen Hawking, a man confined to a wheel-chair, and through no fault of his own, reject masculinity, traditional or otherwise. As it happens he seems to have been a bit of a pussy-hound, notwithstanding his immobility.”
I was referring to more what he represents in terms of the provider/protector role under gynocentric masculinity (and yes I am well aware that it was due to circumstances beyond his control). What you have with Hawking is a guy who really doesn’t measure up in the traditional sense of masculinity due to his motor neurone disease physically crippling him, yet has been a brilliant example of the male intellect.
Men like Hawking, on the cutting edge of building humanity’s body of knowledge, leave a legacy which goes far beyond an ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess. What they leave is a legacy of improving the human condition, where their energies and their abilities have been harnessed in a way which immortalises them and recognises their brilliance in whatever form it may take, rather than in merely being used to facilitate the infantalisation of whichever womb bearer society has lumped them with.
“He writes walls of gibberish, basically blaming men for everything …”
Brace yourselves for hundreds of walls of text by andrew … lmao
“Btw note Andrew Richards is a mangina troll… alot worse then GBFM … feel free to skip his diarrhea …”
Enter the shaming tactic – the classic ad hominem response of feminists, tradcons and PUAs in the absence of any kind of credible rebuttal. After all, all 3 operate from the exact same paradigm.
Oh and fyi, using slurs like mangina, actually actually perpetuates gynocentrism by engaging in genitalia based shaming of men to coerce them into confromity. I’ll give you a piece of info for free now so you can stop wasting your time now you feminist enabler – I’ve never been much of a conformist, so you’re wasting your time trying to shame me into conformity now.
“He writes walls of gibberish, basically blaming men for everything …”
Translation – “I have no rebuttal so I’m resorting to the TL;DNR ad hominem”
Furthermore, I actually blame tradcons, PUAs/Gamers and feminists for the state of society and the injustices against men. After all, deep down, you’re all operating from the same paradigm.
Also, if I blamed men for everything, then why is my activism focused on men who are the most marginalised in society and equally against any individual or group who is culpable in the injustice they face – be they man or woman?
But hey you keep on using the exact same shaming tactics feminists do when they can’t refute the truth and proving my point for me – after all, like feminists, you and your PUA ilk are just another face of gynocentrism.
My heart dropped when I saw him post here yesterday. When PM/AFT was the only place he was posting at that I read daily, I didn’t mind him too much.
His posts ooze with mealy-mouthed weakness, standing in stark contrast to the masculine writing we all enjoy in the androsphere, so I’m confident his program of promoting self-inflicted emasculation will have no effect on anybody. But, that doesn’t mean he won’t be damn annoying for the few months until he inevitably disappears.
@MackPUA “Brace yourselves for hundreds of walls of text by andrew … lmao”
This coming from someone who:
Has engaged in bigotry against disabled men
Has mocked the notion of abused men speaking out
Has militantly defended male disposability
And identifies with a group that has turned facilitating gynocentrism (and therefore every feminist driven injustice against men) into a business venture.
All of the above I might add, was done on sites dedicated to advancing the plight of men in society.
Yet according to him, I’m the troll. Irony much.
@Eincrou “His posts ooze with mealy-mouthed weakness, standing in stark contrast to the masculine writing we all enjoy in the androsphere, ”
Stop pretending you oppose feminism them. This type of attitude is precisely what gives feminism its oxygen and forms the basis of every ounce of feminist dogma.
@ Andrew Richards:
I am curious what your belief system/faith is?
I awoke way too early this morning and just read the latest. I’ll read it again later as there is much. I learn best when I hear/read differing thoughts and opinions. I have never been a conformist either. Within my faith my non-conformism results in challenges with churchiality, but that is another issue.
@All:
I invite all here to not attack divergent opinions. Andrew made some points that really speak to me. He is an advocate for the weak; the mentally ill, the abused.
I’ll reread it later and absorb more of what was conveyed. Time now for my compulsion of working out. Andrew, my working out is kinda like the art folks do as you described above.
Theres nothing divergent about AR, lol
He just regurgitates the same post, over & over again, ad nauseum …
Theres nothing more annoying then a monotonous troll … with walls of inane text …
@vascularity My belief system is a mix of egalitarian, humanitarian and futurist. I’m Catholic but at the same time, vehemently reject traditional masculinity. The way I see it, tradition and customs can often circumvent the core message of a belief system.
I believe that the greatest asset that each of us has is our creative potential and if we actually had an education system and a society which cultivated it, rather than deliberately failing a percentage of the human race through a bell-curve based assessment system, we would have little to no poverty in the world.
In terms of advocacy, perspective has been informed by my childhood and 20s. I fit into the category of being disabled (IQ in the 130s with clinically diagnosed ADD), male psychological child abuse survivor (which started at age 6 and which I only managed to break free from at age 29), male underage sexual assault survivor, male domestic violence survivor and survivor of a violent assault which doctors said I was lucky to not be dead or a vegetable from. All of the above left me with a nice little case of PTSD thrown into the mix. With the exception of the underage sexual assault and the violent assault, all the abuse was perpetrated by women and my female year coordinator, in shaming me into silence, took a bad situation with the underage sexual assault which happened on a school camp, and made it about a hundred times worse.
I’ve been working through it all – actually largely though alternative therapies as conventional have done jack squat for me and I will keep pursuing options and getting back on my feet until the day when I’m thriving and being all I can possibly be. However going through all that gave me an interesting perspective.
I’ve seen firsthand that way that the masculinists treat abused men, as well as the feminists and the tradcons, and it can only be described as appalling and blatantly misandrist. Some people look at the fact that men commit suicide at 4-5 times the rate that women do in shock that the rate is that high. I look at it in amazement that it isn’t dramatically higher. The true test of any movement is how it regards and treats the most marginalised and most vulnerable in its ranks. Thanks to the paradigm of tradcons and PUAs, the manosphere dramatically fails that test overall.
Tradcons and PUAs have these rose coloured glasses on where men are concerned. They seem to think that all men are perpetual supermen, that they can shrug off anything, no matter how massive a trauma is – that there’s something wrong with a man if something comes along that’s so traumatic that he can’t just shrug it off. However a psyche is like any other part of the human body, it has a breaking point. If the tradcon/PUA approach to dealing with trauma were applied to bone fractures, everyone would have their fractures turn into breaks so severe that at least part of the bone would be snapped off and sticking out of the body.
When you see that traditional masculinity is just as culpable in the marginalisation of marginalised men as feminism is, then you very quickly realise that it is just as much of a part of the problem as feminism. When you dig deep enough and understand that gynocentrism is the key problem, you understand that tradcons, PUAs and feminists are merely different faces of the same problem – namely gynocentrism.
Every feminist assertion has tradconism as a base, the very tradconism PUAs eschew in order to score maximum notches on the belt. After all when you normalise the notion of male victims being an impossibility, and women being perpetually submissive to perpetually dominant men, it’s a very short step to “patriarchal theory”.
Warren Farrell once said that we value men as “human doings” rather than “human beings”, yet that’s what gynocentrism, the notion of revulsion and naturally occurring male vulnerability (due entirely to the nature of the human condition) espouses – the notion of men only having value as “human doings”.
When you realise all of that, then you realise that we men have been sold a faulty bill of goods for several thousand years and that we need to radically rethink how we view masculinity – on terms which truly benefit ALL men (especially those who fall through the cracks and who are marginalised) and on those terms alone.
We need to make male victims something socially acceptable. We need to fight for the right of male victims to be heard. We need to fight for male victims to get the support they need to heal so they can be all they can be. The only way the likes of VAWA will be smashed is if there are hundreds of thousands of men out there able to tell their stories in a way that feminists cannot make go away. All our fellow men are our brothers in the human race – we need to treat them as such rather than “the competition”.
Tbh, I’m not surprised at the responses I get. Many in the manosphere think they’ve taken the red pill, but they still hang onto their blue-pill prescribed gender roles and worth. While they might not even admit it, or might not even be consciously aware of it, there is a part of them that is terrified of discarding gynocentrism and letting go of every bit of worth they derive from regarding themselves as “human doings”.
“Andrew, my working out is kinda like the art folks do as you described above.”
I can understand that. Part of self-actualisation is being physically at the best you can be. That’s the interesting thing with so much of society. The question isn’t so much one of what we do, but what out reasons are for doing it and why we value what we do. In fact one of the things I’d argue men need to start doing is valuing and respecting their bodies as being unique and worthy of value for simply being – right down to our sexuality – as opposed to their utility.
And MackPUA proves my point for me yet again.
Andrew Richards and anyone who, like him, pines for a competition-free universe should learn about r/K Selection Theory:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/
@Luke Yes because a safety net and an attitude of giving everyone a hand up who needs it so they can thrive and compete (specifically with themselves), HAS to be advocating for a welfare state. There’s no possible way it could be about ensuring that the playing field has no cracks in it for people to fall irreversibly though, is it? Or perhaps you think Beethoven should have been exposed as a child too?
All you’ve highlighted is the “what” there. However the “why” is gynocentrism (funny about that). What the r/K Selection theory fails to take into account is that you’re operating from a gynocentric paradigm that was a survivalist response to environmental, technological and biological factors intersecting concerns intersecting. Bear in mind that one of the more recent and infamous cases of a K-type society was the Nazis. After all the K-type society is a society heavily grounded in eugenics.
The fact is that we humans have evolved from animals to a higher order of being and so too should our paradigms for society evolve. We live in a world where jobs are safer, average life expectancies are higher than they were even a few centuries ago, maternal mortality rates are down and child mortality rates are down. Short of some global nuclear holocaust sending us all back to the stone age, the paradigm has become obsolete.
Prior to this age, society couldn’t afford for people to focus on higher order needs; the continuation of the human race mandated a pragmatic survivalist social paradigm be the core of our society. However modern medicine and modern science and technology have completely changed the game and in turn, the need for that paradigm.
What is needed now is a society which encourages people not to compete with one another, but to compete with themselves and encourages them to constantly try and improve on their own “bests”.
An interesting anecdote to throw in the mix here. A few years ago a very well know gender advocate was arguing along a very similar line – that people should embrace their “inner animal” and rejecting the higher ordered thinking and ways of modern society. Their name? Germaine Greer.
Dear Andrew,
I am sorry to hear about your experiences:
“In terms of advocacy, perspective has been informed by my childhood and 20s. I fit into the category of being disabled (IQ in the 130s with clinically diagnosed ADD), male psychological child abuse survivor (which started at age 6 and which I only managed to break free from at age 29), male underage sexual assault survivor, male domestic violence survivor and survivor of a violent assault which doctors said I was lucky to not be dead or a vegetable from. All of the above left me with a nice little case of PTSD thrown into the mix. With the exception of the underage sexual assault and the violent assault, all the abuse was perpetrated by women and my female year coordinator, in shaming me into silence, took a bad situation with the underage sexual assault which happened on a school camp, and made it about a hundred times worse.”
Are the perpetrators serving hard time in jail? Were they prosecuted and given justice? Surely there are related news articles we can peruse regarding such serious crimes?
Andrew where did you learn that crap from. You are going to pollute this place for the long haul aren’t you?
@greyghost Typical gynocentric kneejerk reaction. If you think what I’m saying is even remotely close to “polluting” this place, then you might want to try ACTUALLY taking the red pill.
You just answered the question. You are here for the long haul.
@greyghost Yes, because unlike you and certain others in this thread, I actually give a shit about men at their most marginalised and isolated in society – as well as ACTUALLY combating feminism down to its very roots (as opposed to doubling down on gynocentrism and actually enabling feminism).
lol … doubling down on gynocentrism … sounds like the plotline of every porn ever made …
So who wants a bet how many posts until Dalrock bans AR … or until he gets sick of everyone complaining about AR’s walls of inane bullshit …
Que more walls of text by AR calling me a tradcon & gynocentric gay porn … waaahmbulance anyone?
@Andrew Richards
You didn’t address my point at all, ran off on your diatribe. I agree the educational system is screwed up, but that was not the point of your original assertion about valid role models.
My prayers and sympathies toward your victimization and your efforts to move past that. However, you are trying to derive from that a mandate for compassion from society. Even if it sounds like a good thing for male victims, the mandate is straight out of the gynocentric playbook. Life has absolutely no requirement to be fair and efforts to demand fairness are inherently unfair in and of themselves. That is not to say I have no compassion for you, but that is to say that my compassion for you is voluntary, not mandated. Men compete with other men for money, power, resources and women, that’s the way we’re wired, that’s the way we’ll always be wired. Yes so sorry Andrew despite your victimization, you have to compete with other men. That Reality Really Sucks, doesn’t it? An unfortunate side effect is that some men will fall by the wayside and we can’t wish that away. The best we can do as Christians is to offer our compassion and help. Voluntarily. For instance as a Catholic man, I support some local Catholic charities with my time and my money, and I feel a lot better about that than I do about having my money forcibly extracted from my pocket to support government social mandates.
As iron sharpens iron, so one man may sharpen another. As you are still at least partially caught in the gynocentric web, that’s a lesson you haven’t fully taken in yet..
Except that I’m not the only one calling out the PUA/game community and tradcons on this. Cerberus Alpha completely called you and your gynocentric ilk out on your feminsit enabling recently with this blog entry: http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/why-are-men-more-violent.html
Elam called out Tradcons years ago (before he started to lose the plot) as being culpable in the rise of feminism by being “good little providers” and giving feminist women exactly what they wanted.
Even PMAFT recently called out tradcons for being against men’s rights (http://www.antifeministtech.info/2013/05/everyone-but-mras-think-that-equality-is-a-plot-to-benefit-men/) and for enabling feminists by merely taking everything they say on face value and knee jerking in the opposite direction (http://www.antifeministtech.info/2013/04/tradcons-let-feminists-define-their-reality/).
The fact is that what I’m saying might be inconvenient for certain gynocentric men here, but that’s all it is – inconvenient. All the claims of “trolling” and “pollution” wont change that.
@ Andrew Richards:
I strongly disagree with a strong, centralized state, which is what we continue to transform into. I believe folks should be helped to help themselves. Today there are so many on social security, unemployment insurance for (I think) five years, and other welfare programs. The outcome of the welfare-nanny state is increased dependence. Perhaps instead of so much welfare the government should provide free tubal legations and free vasectomies. Today there are so many on social security, unemployment insurance for (I think) five years, and other welfare programs. Soon we will run out of tax payers to pay for all those who are on the take.
@Random Angeleno
On the contrary, I completely addressed your point, you just missed the point completely. You asked what about the rest of those men who fail to be “geniuses”. I first off responded by pointing out that taking the Western education system as a credible yardstick for your capabilities (when it is designed to make a certain percentage of people to fail rather than succeed) is an exercise in sheer masochism and self-deprication.
Secondly I pointed out that the principle for picking role models applies right across the board. If you take away the provider, the protector and the sexual prowess from any male role model’s vocation and look at what’s actually left (which is an ironic statement as it’s 99% of everything and what really matters), then you wind up in a radically different and much more self-actualised place.
Thirdly if you’re making the highly ironic claim that advocating for victims is gynocentrism, then you clearly don’t have an understanding of gynocentrism at all. The fact is that it is gynocentrism which is the reason why men who fail to live up to the disposable ideal are discarded, shamed and isolated by society. In fact it is the notion of men competing to be the best provider, the best protector and to get the most notches on the belt with the most attractive women that is gynocentrism in a nutshell. The irony of a knee jerk tradcon opposition to feminism and a fervent support of feminism is that in both cases, you are actually supporting gynocentrism. After all every single feminist assertion is just traditional conservatism “dialed up to 11”.
The fact is that if we are to treat men as human beings rather than as objects of utility then the nature of how we view men has to change. Certainly men should always seek to be the best they can, but the reasons need to radically change. If the corruption and injustice are to change, then we need to stop competing with each other and competing with ourselves – to make it about self-actualisation as opposed to being the best adherent to gynocentrism. You through that paradigm into the mix and female infantalisation collapses like a house of cards.
I agree with Random Angeleno regarding the reality of the unfairness of life, that not accepting that reality results in increased confusion and social pathology. I also agree that a church, voluntary system of provision for the needy would be good. Perhaps the church can serve as an adjunct to the state, but our state really must cut way back due to both financial reasons and cultural reasons. The cultural reason is my previous assertion that too much free money by the state fosters helplessness.
Andrew, you have a good heart. You would be welcome in my home for a lengthy discussion if this were not the internet.
@vascularity that’s the irony here. If we actually addressed the issue of marginalised men, you would actually be talking about the opposite of a perpetual welfare state.
The reason the feminist approach approach advocates for a perpetual welfare class is because their whole ideology is grounded in the feminine aspect of gynocentrism – namely female infantalisation. In advocating for their agenda, feminists are simply replacing “the man in their life” with the state. The feminist model has nothing to do with rehabilitation and everything to do with maintaining a perpetual victim class.
What I and other male victim advocates seek could not be more alien. The reality is what we need are systems and support structures in place which actually heal and rehabilitate men so that they can thrive as they should. It’s about encouraging men to heal at the right pace for them to actually heal and making that socially acceptable. Does that mean that we should accept it taking longer than it could? Hell no and a large portion of this would involve research which resulted in minimising the ammount of time a man needed to recover.
However such an approach, a compassionate approach, is the sign of an advanced society. Anyone can engage in a “dog eat dog” paradigm for society – heck, even the most primitive of animals do just that. However the fact is that reflecting on the human condition and changing it for the better is an inherrent male trait at its most untainted by gynocentrism.
The fact is that we have reached a point in human evolution and development where the old paradigms no longer apply, and where our continued existence or our possible extinction, will hinge on our ability to evolve and adapt our outdated and obsolete (gynocentric) social paradigm.
@vascularity “I agree with Random Angeleno regarding the reality of the unfairness of life, that not accepting that reality results in increased confusion and social pathology.”
On the contrary, I get you meant “recognise” rather than “accept” (and I agree it should be recognised), but drawing that distinction, and as an advanced society “accepting” said injustice is the last thing we should do. We often talk about men building everything and the scientific advancements men have brought to a society, yet one of the key tenants of an advanced society is compassion.
That’s because in an advanced society, you’re no longer worried about only breeding the best kids so that you can get maybe 1 or 2 out of 10 to make it to adulthood. You’re not worried about certain fields of work being a perpetual health hazard (eg the simple invention of the hardhat and protective glasses/face shields). You’re not worried about people on average only making it to their 40s to 50s. In an advanced society, to take a Maslowian approach, your lower order needs are all fulfilled and you can afford to move onto your higher order needs and actually move towards the point of complete self-actualisation.
Don’t get me wrong, the feminist welfare state is a complete devolution as it actually discourages self-actualisation, rather than people engaging in self-mastery. However as you move to an advanced civilisation where you don’t have to base society loosely around the eugenics of gynocentrism, you move increasingly towards a society where the human potential and the creative density of a well educated society (something we stopped having decades ago sadly) being the core of society’s prosperity.
Certainly we should avoid a “handout” mentality. However if we throw the baby out with the bathwater and also reject the notion of a “hand-up”, then we risk losing some priceless contributions and legacies to society. That is of course forgetting that it’s moving towards a gynocentric model of men only being valued in terms of their utility rather than their humanity.
Andrew, you blew it here in particular:
“The fact is that we humans have evolved from animals to a higher order of being and so too should our paradigms for society evolve”
Uh, NO. That’s PC-gobbledigook for ever-increasing and never-retreating socialism and nannystatism, also called totalitarianism, modern slavery, or “what isn’t mandatory is forbidden”. Let legal adults in trouble get by with with whatever VOLUNTARY charity others freely CHOOSE to give them, and nothing more. Whatever people who are better off have that they don’t choose to give away, is by definition NOT surplus. (The person who produced a good, or earned the money, is the one who gets 100% of the right to decide what he has made that is available to give away.)
Government has NO role in directly dealing with poverty. If someone was defrauded, and this is proved in court, then only the victim is owed, with restitution owed by the defrauder only.
@Andrew:
Preceding acceptance is recognition. We agree there needs to be recognition of the inherent unfairness of life that occurs in many, many forms. To me an acceptance is the next healthy step. I speak from the perspective that we reside in a sinful world and that we ourselves are sinful and we cannot overcome that sinful nature on our own accord (contrary to what some Christians seems to assert). According to my belief system, Jesus Christ is my perfection in my stead. Faith in Him results in our Creator viewing the believer as blameless, as reckoned justified by what Jesus Christ did during His life and subsequently on the cross.
Perhaps for me it is less difficult to “accept” as I have my faith to cushion me. I can accept this loony world for what it is and have peace of mind from my faith.
BUT, acceptance should not result in just ignoring injustice, the needs of others, or choosing to be non-compassionate. Our Creator requires those of us who call ourselves Christians to be compassionate and help others. For me over helping results in a cultural mess, as you seem to agree. It appears to me that we kinda define the term “accept” a bit differently due to differing belief systems. I invite you to adopt the Christian faith and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Faith in God is absolutely wonderful, not just for hope of the next life, but hope and positively answered prayers in the here and now.
My IQ is only 129.5 (haha)
P.S. Andrew, your writing here even flunks Godwin’s Law, it’s got that many deficiencies. You really need to cease writing for some time to come, and instead read and learn.
Andrew, you’re only asking us to defy 2 million years of biology. Your idealism is my tyranny. No thanks.
The fact is that we humans have evolved from animals to a higher order of being and so too should our paradigms for society evolve.
You have confused technological advancement with social and intellectual advancement and would seek to mandate your paradigm on our society. You lay claim to being totally against gynocentrism but here you are pulling from their playbook.
@Luke “Andrew, you blew it here in particular:
“The fact is that we humans have evolved from animals to a higher order of being and so too should our paradigms for society evolve”
Uh, NO. That’s PC-gobbledigook for ever-increasing and never-retreating socialism and nannystatism, also called totalitarianism, modern slavery, or “what isn’t mandatory is forbidden”.
Complete and utter BS. What that is, is Platonian and Aristotilian philosophies on justice – you know the very philosophies which our justice and legal systems are based on. There is nothing totalitarian about it. Furthermore there are countless philosophers, statesmen and theologians throughout the ages who would completely disagree with you on that front.
“Let legal adults in trouble get by with with whatever VOLUNTARY charity others freely CHOOSE to give them, and nothing more.”
Yes because with the epidemic of male suicides out there, that approach is just working wonders, isn’t it?
What you are advocating for is a system which fails men and boys every single day of every single year. If a man and women are in similar straights, the money will almost always go in its entirety to the woman. Why? Because under this system of gynocentrism, men are at best, expendable and their lives are deemed inconsequential.
The fact is that governments have a responsibility to provide essential services and infrastructure to people – that includes health care – so that the nation can maximise its productivity. As what we are talking about falls under the category of health care the moment you get to the recovery and survivor phase, what you are saying goes against every single first rate health care system in the world.
“Whatever people who are better off have that they don’t choose to give away, is by definition NOT surplus. (The person who produced a good, or earned the money, is the one who gets 100% of the right to decide what he has made that is available to give away.)”
Again though, plenty of countries manage health and support systems with the revenue they get in. If the system is working properly, you shouldn’t need additional taxation to make it possible.
“Government has NO role in directly dealing with poverty.”
On the contrary, the best thing for a country’s productivity is to to tackle poverty so that you’re not losing productivity. Heck that was the driving force behind Roosevelt’s actions in saving people from home loan foreclosure in the 30s. Even on an economic level your argument completely fails.
“If someone was defrauded, and this is proved in court, then only the victim is owed, with restitution owed by the defrauder only.”
This works great in theory, but in practice, you’ve always going to find some people who are simply flat broke and getting restitution out of them will be like getting blood out of a stone. What’s your solution there – condemn those men to be yet another suicide statistic?
“P.S. Andrew, your writing here even flunks Godwin’s Law, it’s got that many deficiencies. You really need to cease writing for some time to come, and instead read and learn.”
Own goal. Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply when you’re actually making relevant and accurate comparisons to the Holocaust. Next time you try and draw on something, actually make sure you understand the concept first.
@Random Angelo “Andrew, you’re only asking us to defy 2 million years of biology.”
Except that it’s anything but pure biology. What it actually is, is society socialising people based on the utility of their biology. There is a massive difference between the two.
“Your idealism is my tyranny. No thanks.”
By that logic, “feminism is freedom” and you gleefully embrace it. After all feminism under this current paradigm was an inevitability at this stage of technological advancement, and by doubling down on gynocentrism, you double down on feminism’s very lifeblood.
“”The fact is that we humans have evolved from animals to a higher order of being and so too should our paradigms for society evolve.”
You have confused technological advancement with social and intellectual advancement and would seek to mandate your paradigm on our society. You lay claim to being totally against gynocentrism but here you are pulling from their playbook.”
Seriously this is an own goal so bad it didn’t just burn through the net, but it went 3 blocks away.
I haven’t confused anything. No form of advancement exists in a vaccuum. The fact is that technological development and its impacts on medicine and standards of living, as well as thins like workplace safety, entirely shape social and intellectual advancement – especially as technological advancement comes from intellectual advancement.
You keep claiming I’m pulling from the playbook of gynocentrism, but when you make ludicrous claims that effectively amount to misandry and male disposability being a part of the natural order, it is you who is actually doubling down on gynocentrism. Seriously, look up what the term actually means, because right now it’s clear you don’t have the first clue just what gynocentrism is.
@vasc “Faith without works is dead.”
@Andrew:
Exactly! If you havne’t ever read the bible, you might want to read the book of James in the New Testament. It is only a few pages. James deals with the issue to faith and works. I believe you would like that read. Then the Gospel of John in the New Testament would be my pick for a second reading.
@vasc I’m not as well versed in my bible as I probably should be as a Christiam, but tbh, I view what I endured in terms of my abuse and my activism as the cross that I am personally meant to carry and that God’s plan was to put me through what I went through so it would put me in a place where I had the understanding to be able to fight to make a difference. To me, my activism is the social justice aspect of my faith.
@Andrew:
Then begin reading the bible. Read the New Testament first as that is more about Jesus.
@vasc What I meant was that I’m not like some Christians who have every verse of the Bible memorised. I’ve actually got a fairly good understanding of the Gospels (relative to human limitations anyway).
Andrew, your socialism works until you run out of other people’s money. No thank you. Your socialism is feminism redoubled. No thank you. Reality is a bear, I know. Keep believing what you believe, it makes you comfortable and superior in your own mind, I see that. If it helps you rationalize your victim state, I get that. But it is still tyranny. However, I’ll defend your right to say it.
I’ll give you a hint: men don’t grow up through mothering. But you would have society mother us toward masculinity. How well has that worked for boys in single mother homes?
The fact is that we humans have evolved from animals to a higher order of being and so too should our paradigms for society evolve
This actually sounds more like generalized Lysenkoism than anything.
The fact is that it’s a short step from “we’ve evolved to something better” to “we need to evolve to something better”. The second declaration follows the failure of the first to manifest itself, after which normal people are inevitably demonized for being human beings, rather than whatever post-human species the utopians have unilaterally decided have supposedly replaced them.
We’re people. Same as we were 1000 years ago, same as 1,000,000 years ago. Throwing out what had proven effective is what got us into this mess. Let’s get back to what works, and then we can start dreaming up castles in the sky from a functional society.
Regards, Boxer
@Angeleno Like I said before, you really need to come to understand just what gynocentrism is, because honestly, what you are saying could not be more ironic. As it stands right now, you have eyes, but you do not see.
The most telling part is:
“I’ll give you a hint: men don’t grow up through mothering. But you would have society mother us toward masculinity. How well has that worked for boys in single mother homes?”
You are operating from dogma rather that from a place of sound reasoning. Your entire premise in this statement and your argument in general, ignores the fact that gynocentrism (the ideological paradigm where a woman’s womb is deemed to be priceless and people are given an prescribed role and value relative to the needs and safety of said womb) is alive and well in a society where male disposability and utility, the only yardstick by which men have every had value, has become almost completely obsolete.
Furthermore, you focus on the masculine and the feminine without even understanding that “gender” has 2 components – the biological and the social. Lumping both in together is essentially an assertion the feminism is a part of the natural order. After all, feminism is the result of men unquestioningly providing for women, whatever she desires, in a society where male disposability is almost completely obsolete – then being good little protectors and enforcing what it institutes. By all means the biological needs to be recognised, however so does the social.
Of course boys in single mother homes, under this toxic social paradigm, with the absence of fathers and in a society where they are taught to be ashamed to be men are going to wind up messed up by it. However you fail to grasp that men have always been conditioned to be ashamed of themselves in one regard or another and it’s gone on far too long. Furthermore how does creating an environment where a boy’s humanity is valued, suddenly even remotely rule out equally instilling in them the drive to be the best versions of themselves they can be, grounded in self-actualisation and self-mastery? How does changing the game so the development of boys is based around what is genuinely best for them as opposed to what is best for society, even remotely amount to a gynocentric approach.
One other fallacy I notice in your response, precisely why I might add, feminists have been able to manipulate the family courts so easily, is that when it comes to nurturing boys into men, you automatically call it “mothering” rather than parenting. What drives this of course is the notion of “real men aren’t nurturers” and “only mothers are nurturers”. Ergo, as children benefit from nurturing environments, which parent is automatically going to wind up with custody most, if not all of the time? Mothers of course.
That’s the thing. You claim that I’m operating from a feminist perspective, that I’m being gyynocentric. However if you actually understood what gynocentrism is, and how it influences society, you’d see that your position is actually the gynocentric one.
Now to deal with your economic/political argument.
“Andrew, your socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.”
Yet my entire approach from an economic perspective is completely sound and actually pro-capitalist. You knee jerk that I must be talking about socialism, yet you clearly don’t understand the importance of the physical economy (infrastructure, resources [which includes the country’s people] and production capacity) to the productivity of a nation and therefore its economy. The first rule of running a business is that you maximise your assets for maximum return. Governments are more complex than that because they have a responsiblity for the general welfare of their people, but at the end of the day, if you have a productive and self-actualised population, then it’s going to increase productivity through the roof, which in turn means increased revenue, especially if you gear the system so that it’s regulated to protect small business from corporations using predatory practices to destroy small business and from oligopalies (the one glaring flaw in pure free market economics, which btw is anti-capitalist).
@Andrew
You’re a victim. You were once a victim by circumstance, but you now self-identify as a victim because it is comfortable for you. It’s how you identify. It’s what you’ve chosen to give importance to your life. The doctor tells you very good news–you’re lucky to be alive, but all you can hear (and pass on to random strangers as identification and qualification) is that you should be dead–and it brings you no joy. You deny yourself joy because you’re comparative about it. You look around, and you understand that most people have not had to suffer what you have suffered. You believe that when others say “life isn’t fair”, that they don’t know this like you do; that you’re better qualified than everyone else to judge what is fair. You believe you’d know if anyone else were qualified because qualify themselves to you with their stories of pain and suffering.
This makes you useless to yourself, and everyone else; which is a shame because you probably have learned a lot through your trials.
You say you are a Catholic; which means that you believe Christ died for you–that you killed Christ and He still chose to died for you–and that He rose from the dead; defeating death for all time. He did that for His glory and to bring you into that glory.
On top of that: You have been temporally spared for a purpose, when so many others have died. I can’t tell you what that purpose is, but we can be sure that it’s not regime change. So, what is that purpose?
By the way: It’s what Christ did in resurrection that qualifies Him to us as the Son of God. He was the Son from the beginning of all things, but until did things like speak the universe into existence; create man, become incarnated as a man, die as a man, and come back to life as a man. We literally wouldn’t be anywhere without what He did. Sin–what separates us from God–is what we do. So important to God is what we do that not even who are being matters. Doing is also what separates us from the animals. Animals only do by instinct, and with very few exceptions and some extraordinary training–can >strong>do no other. We see this from the beginning: The elevation of the idea “who you are” over “who you serve” is the fundamental sin of Eve, as deceived by the serpent.
If you want, you can email me at cane(dot)caldo(at)gmail(dot)com.
@Boxer “The second declaration follows the failure of the first to manifest itself, after which normal people are inevitably demonized for being human beings, rather than whatever post-human species the utopians have unilaterally decided have supposedly replaced them.”
On the contrary, if anything, my position is actually pure Vernadskyism and the complete converse of what you are claiming. My criticisms lie squarely at the feet of utilitarianism and are based on the fact that the creative human potential – our greatest resource as a global society – is generally undervalued and underdeveloped (I refuse to use the term “species” to describe us). Contrary to your assertion, this is actually venerating the human condition, rather than condemning it.
“We’re people. Same as we were 1000 years ago, same as 1,000,000 years ago. Throwing out what had proven effective is what got us into this mess. Let’s get back to what works, and then we can start dreaming up castles in the sky from a functional society.”
Clearly you can’t see the glaring oxymoron in this statement. People may remain the same in terms of their potential generally speaking (although evolution is an ongoing and incredibly gradual process) – in fact I would argue that the creative human potential has been far too undervalued and underdeveloped for far too long. However your prima facie here of conflating biology with socio-environmental factors here is utterly flawed.
The fact is that human behaviour is shaped by both their intrinsic traits and their social experiences (ie behaviourism). Societies in turn are shaped by environmental factors and levels of science and technology, including medicine.
Look at the way things like personal automotive transport, air travel, telecommunication and modern medicine have revolutionised and radically altered society, to bring up just a few examples. The fact is that science and technology radically alter the lives of people and as a result the very mechanics of how a society operates.
You talk about what got us here, but you have clearly never stopped to reflect on why it worked, or what drove it.
One popular definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different results or to to something different and expect the same result.
Yes, gynocentrism got us to the modern age and was (sadly and tragically) needed before the arrival of modern medicine and modern technology; it was the sheer pragmatic survivalism of past eras which drove gynocentrism. However with the arrival of modern technology and modern medicine, those survivalist concerns became resolved and with them, the need for gynocentrism and the social environment where gynocentrism actually worked, both ceased to exist.
Yet society still kept the gynocentric paradigm, which of course inevitably resulted in feminism and the current state of play for men. In short, when the socio environmental factors changed, we did the same thing in a different society. This of course was “doing something different” as we were no longer matching socio-environmental factors with their optimal social paradigm. However we expected the same results. Small surprise that the world is now truly an insane place.
The fact is that short of a post-apocalyptic horror, the toothpaste can never be put back in the tube. Modern science, modern medicine and modern technology are here to stay and with them, their impacts on society. The game has changed and with it, the optimal paradigm for society to function. What’s needed now, rather than “going back to how things were” is to recognise why the system worked back them, how things have changed, and apply those understandings to the current state of society.
If you’d actually reflected on why gynocentrism got us to the point of the modern age, but why after that point, everything broke down (in fact feminism hasn’t deviated from the traditional gynocentric social paradigm in any way shape or form); you’d see that while the socioenvironmental factors which necessitated gynocentrism had radically changed and why the continued adherence to gynocentrism will only further the decay and destruction of civilisation.
This is why the blue pill response to the current state of play in society is utterly contradictory and utterly ineffective.
@vascularity
This is completely off topic, but that is a bad ass avatar pic, my brother.
(no homo)
Best, Boxer
“You’re a victim. You were once a victim by circumstance, but you now self-identify as a victim because it is comfortable for you. It’s how you identify. It’s what you’ve chosen to give importance to your life. The doctor tells you very good news–you’re lucky to be alive, but all you can hear (and pass on to random strangers as identification and qualification) is that you should be dead–and it brings you no joy. You deny yourself joy because you’re comparative about it. You look around, and you understand that most people have not had to suffer what you have suffered. You believe that when others say “life isn’t fair”, that they don’t know this like you do; that you’re better qualified than everyone else to judge what is fair. You believe you’d know if anyone else were qualified because qualify themselves to you with their stories of pain and suffering.
This makes you useless to yourself, and everyone else; which is a shame because you probably have learned a lot through your trials.”
This is a complete prima facie Cane. There is one reason and one reason alone why I identify as a survivor of abuse. The fact is that I look at myself as being damn lucky. I could be a suicide statistic, I could have wound up in jail if my abusive ex had’ve used the legal system as a weapon too – to bring up just 2 examples of where I’m fortunate. I’m in a situation with people who support me, where I have the resources to move forward and I am moving forwards in terms of my own journey.
Countless other men out there in similar circumstances are far less fortunate. They wind up in jail through primary aggressor laws, destitute through being bankrupted through the financial abuse of abusive girlfriends/wives or dead because they had nowhere to turn and reach a place where the only viable option they see is taking their own lives. I see the situation they’re in, and I refuse to turn my back on them.
What drives this is a perpetual cycle of shame and lies. Men don’t come forward because they face being mocked and ignored, reporting figures are low as a result, which then allows feminism to use said reporting figures as justification for its claims. This then results in legislation which is based on said dogma and actually villainises and persectues female-on-male abuse sufferers. This in turn causes men to remain silent – and so the cycle continues.
The only way to break that cycle is for the majority of abused men to feel like they can come forward. Once that happens, reporting figures start to change and the whole cycle gets broken from there. I identify as an abuse survivor not out of pity, but out of an understanding that the more men who publicly identify as abuse survivors, then the more publicly acceptable it becomes for men to admit to being abused. Eventually as that spirals upward, you reach a point where the entire feminist narrative on rape and domestic violence collapses like a house of cards. That starts with challenging the notion of men “sucking it up” [repressing it and hoping it wont “come out sideways” – which it inevitably does] to get through trauma.
The fact is that those men who aren’t as fortunate as I was, deserve far better than that.
“On top of that: You have been temporally spared for a purpose, when so many others have died. I can’t tell you what that purpose is, but we can be sure that it’s not regime change. So, what is that purpose? ”
Based on what? The notion that God can make an even greater good come out of an evil, is a core principle of the Christian faith.
“The elevation of the idea “who you are” over “who you serve” is the fundamental sin of Eve, as deceived by the serpent.”
Yet my entire attitude to my activism is that it is God’s will for me. In fact whenever injustice against men leaves me feeling rage, one of my first reactions is to pray and ask that my rage be tempered so that my activism might serve him rather than evil.
Furthermore, the parable of the talents makes it clear that God does expect us to self-actualise. Christian doctrine also refers to our bodies as “temples”. Furthermore we are called to be living witnesses to the Gospel – which means advancing God’s kingdom on Earth and is the ideological core of Christian social justice. Ergo, my entire outlook and attitude to men’s issues is entirely in line with the teachings of Christ.
Dear Andrew:
Years ago, one of my mentors read through a later draft of a long work I was preparing to publish. A couple of pages in he sighed, looked up, crossed his eyes slightly, and said “if you have something interesting to tell people, then just tell it, and spare your readers the condescension.”
Since then I’ve noticed that all the truly intelligent people are brainy enough to boil complex ideas down to a reduction that average dummoxes (like my own bad self) will find easy reading. The author of all these articles here, known as Dalrock, is a good example. You’ll note that he doesn’t bore his readers with terms like stochastic when he means random and he doesn’t talk about standard deviations or z scores when he puts a chart up. Sure, some of us know what those words mean, but most don’t. Those of us who do wouldn’t find his articles more compelling for their pretentiousness and haughty tone.
However your prima facie here of conflating biology with socio-environmental factors here is utterly flawed.
This tells me you don’t know what generalized lysenkoism entails, and it also tells me you missed my own little bit of sarcasm. I don’t necessarily disagree with all of your theses, mind you; I just find your writing style somewhat insufferable and think you ought to settle down a bit and enter the discourse as a player, rather than a pretended adjudicator.
Regards, Boxer
@ Andrew
You mentioned a few times that we should go back to when things were working. When was that? What culture and time frame do you reference with this? My perspective of history is that every culture/kingdom has been extremely flawed since Eve gave Adam the apple, and Adam’s choice to do what Eve requested by eating the apple. Since then sin resulted in this ongoing broken world.
mackPUA wrote:
So who wants a bet how many posts until Dalrock bans AR
For those who don’t want to wait until Dalrock drops the banhammer, I’ve written a script to filter out his posts. It’s intended to work with Firefox and needs the Greasemonkey plugin installed.
// ==UserScript==
// @name arkiller-dalrock
// @namespace https://dalrock.wordpress.com
// @description Removes troll posts by Andrew Richards and other pests
// @include https://dalrock.wordpress.com
// @include https://dalrock.wordpress.com/*
// @version 1
// ==/UserScript==
// To add members to the list, right-click on the troll’s gravatar icon and select “Copy Image Location”,
// then copy the url to the left hand side of the colon. The troll’s handle goes on the right hand side.
// Remember to add a comma on the left of each additional member.
var trollList;
var allImages;
var repTimes;
var i;
var j;
var thisImage;
var up1;
var up2;
var trollCount;
// To add to the troll list, right click and click “View Image Info”. Then copy and paste the location.
trollList = {
“http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/a910a39a604185e2c4a4fc3b0a7f354e?s=40&d=identicon&r=PG” : “Andrew Richards”
,”http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/de67272d88f809afdef11dc316e89bae?s=48&d=identicon&r=G” : “Summerspeaker”
};
allImages = document.getElementsByTagName(“img”);
repTimes = repTimes = Object.keys(trollList).length + 1;
allImages = document.getElementsByTagName(“img”);
trollCount = 0;
for (i=0; i < 2; i++) {
for (j=0; j < allImages.length; j++) {
var thisImage = allImages[j];
if (thisImage.src in trollList) {
var up2 = thisImage.parentNode.parentNode;
var up3 = up2.parentNode;
var up4 = up3.parentNode;
up4.removeChild(up3);
trollCount++;
}
}
}
pluralp = (trollCount === 1) ? "" : "s";
// Remove the comment marker // next to the alert box if you want to have a pop-up box of how many troll posts
// have been removed.
//alert(trollCount + " troll post" + pluralp + " removed");
@Boxer “This tells me you don’t know what generalized lysenkoism entails, and it also tells me you missed my own little bit of sarcasm.”
No I understood what generalized lysenkoism entails. However the flaw with that assertion is that you’re implying that I’m discounting biology, when in fact what I am doing is discerning the difference between the elements of manhood which are biological and the elements of manhood which are entirely due to social factors (ie a person’s utility). Ironically, the secondary meaning of lysenkoism (ie using pseudo science to drive an ideological argument), actually applies to anyone who claims that traditional masculine norms are entirely based in biology alone.
Also you should be aware that sarcasm like emotional, doesn’t tend to translate well on forum posts.
@Ray Manta I keep hearing these claims of my being banned flying around, yet I’m still on PMAFT, I’m still on the-spearhead and I’m still on thisiswhymgtow. Furthermore, PMAFT recently made 2 blog posts completely in line with my attitude to tradcons, while Cerberus Alpha, whom PMAFT is a fan of, completely slammed PUAs recently as feminist enablers. Funny about that.
@Andrew
But is it true? You’ve made it clear that you want to be known. To accuse me of prima facie when you’ve said “This is me!” is ridiculous, at best.
I simply don’t believe you. None of your lengthy previous comments have any of the positive attitude you’ve scrounged up for this most recent one. As it was written in response to my challenge, it seems more likely to me that it’s more of a feint at joy than an honest expression. You know what I’m talking about: chicks do this all the time. Now, I’m not calling you a chick, but…don’t do that.
Even in painting the picture of your survival, you express it in the most passive terms:
“I didn’t kill myself.”
“My ex didn’t use the legal system as a weapon.”
“Others support me”
Until you get to the end, and now I’m supposed to believe that” You have the resources”? That “you’re moving forwards in term of your own journey”? Bullshit. You’re going nowhere, and it’s on someone else’s terms. You just said so. Your story is that everything that happens in your life is the result of what someone else has done or not done, and then at the end you reframe it as if this is your doing; your choice.
Which is what I said: You’re a victim now because you choose to be; because it’s comfortable.
No, they don’t. We all deserve death. This is Christianity 101, and your words show you do not believe it. You’re far from alone. However; as Christians, our job (there is that “doing” again) is to share in suffering to ease it; to intercede as Christ interceded. You get some of this, but you’re got it all jumbled up. Activism does not share or ease suffering. It just doesn’t. Nor does it prevent it. Activism isn’t really doing anything.
You keep using “self-actualise”. What does self-actualise mean but to pursue your own godhood as you see fit? Christ says we must die to self. The parable of the talents is NOT about pursuing your personal best (serving yourself), but about giving your best in service to the master.
You’re talking about yourself. This is the expression of someone who wants a victim badge that proves to everyone that the wearer is a REAL victim; not like all those fakers out there. This is the remark of someone who wants Victim Pageants, and if we did, then you’d believe the world would change. And I think you really want to win…but you’re frustrated because there’s just no one competing.
And there never will be, because this is a fundamentally narcissistic stance you’ve taken, and other folks aren’t real to narcissists. If what I’ve said is true: The best you can hope for is someone who has circumstances as close to yours as possible, so that you can see yourself in them. That is: you’d still feel alone, and ashamed.
I’m not going to to back and forth on this all night because I’m not going to convince you right now. My purpose is to hope this sinks in, and six months from now you say, “Damn. I am so sick of thinking about myself.” If you do, my email address is in the above comment.
@vasc “You mentioned a few times that we should go back to when things were working. When was that? What culture and time frame do you reference with this? My perspective of history is that every culture/kingdom has been extremely flawed since Eve gave Adam the apple, and Adam’s choice to do what Eve requested by eating the apple. Since then sin resulted in this ongoing broken world.”
I didn’t actually mention that, someone else did and I responded that we need to actually understand why something worked when it did and how compatible it is with society today.
The term “worked” is actually a pretty relative one. Yes gynocentrism worked for the pre-industrial age, but at what level of society? Gynocentrism certainly allowed our society to survive to the point of the industrial age, but from a Maslowian perspective, how far up the heirarchy did society get and therefore how successful can it have truly been.
Surviving and thriving are 2 completely different things, requiring different social paradigms (ie individuals of value vs cogs in a machine) and sadly the 2 get conflated. Bear in mind that “the good old days” meant things like 28,000 men being construction fodder for construction of the Panama Canal. Let’s face it, there’s not much glory in that.
As such, in terms of a truly successful society, I don’t believe there has ever been one- at least in terms of a society that transcended pragmatic survivalism. That said, such a society is possible in the next century, but it requires us redefining ourselves as a global society and in terms of our manhoods and womanhoods, now that the vast bulk of the social factors which defined us as a global society, have radically altered.
There are 2 extremes on the gender divide. One side claims that gender is a complete social construct. The other claims that gender is entirely biological. Both are wrong. The fact is that gender does have a biological component to it. However at the same time, society uses that biological component for its own ends, hence there’s also a social component. This all “works” when the paradigm is still compatible with the social and environmental factors. However the moment those factors change and you keep the same paradigm, it becomes like putting diesel in a petrol engine or visa versa.
However the problem is that the system hasn’t just shamed people into that paradigm but enticed them into it too the point where rejecting it appears to be a terrifying and utterly self-deprecating concept to them. It’s no coincidence for example, that feminists are now coming out and admitting they have no interest in equality (as they would lose the privilege which comes with female infantalisation, or that large sections of the manosphere rail against the MRM.
If society can manage to change its gender paradigm, there’s hope for that society of people thriving and self-actualising to eventuate, along with the complete destruction of feminism and misandry in general for that matter. However if people keep clinging to gynocentrism, what we’re going to wind up with is death by feminism – to the point where even the genocidal rantings of Valerie Solanas wind up becoming mere futurism.
@Cale Caldo The person spouting BS here is you- not to mention pure misandry.
Tell me, when men raise the issue of primary aggressor laws, are they “playing the victim”?
When men bring up having endured false rape allegations to try and change the system, are they “playing the victim”?
When men bring up injustice in the family courts are they “playing the victim”?
I suppose you think they should just “man up” in those situations too, pretend the problem doesn’t exist and in doing so, be culpable in perpetuating the feminism trope of “women are never the perpetrator; only the victim and only women are victims”. After all, even though I’m mindful of those men and boys who fall through the cracks completely, apparently it’s all about “me me me”. The instances of violence against men like Catherine Kieu’s husband sends me into a white hot rage over what happened to him, that people would dare laugh about it when there would be rioting on the streets if the roles were reversed – but apparently all I see is my own experience.
But then heaven forbid that tradcons like yourself actually have your insecure senses of masculinity challenged by the reality of hundreds of thousands of men in the US each year alone who fall prey to domestic violence? You and your ilk can’t have that, now can you? So you resort to shaming tactics and baseless and blatantly fraudulent claims of narcissism and “playing the victim card”.
The fact is I didn’t bring up the positive aspects of my own situation, because that’s not what activism is about. Activism is about shining a light on the injustices of society. Pointing out the lucky exceptions does nothing to raise awareness of injustice when it is the norm. Oh and fyi, I’ve experienced both the positives and the negatives as a survivor and if I was playing the “wounded little victim” in response to the negatives I wouldn’t be still in the trenches fighting, but huddled up in a ball somewhere.
There’s really only one part of your post which is even remotely accurate. You wont convince me because your entire post is nothing but gynocentric apologetics. You’re right that there is narcissim here, however it is you projecting your own narcissistic insecurities about your own manhood onto me, rather than any narcissism on my part.
@Andrew
I didn’t use shaming tactics, but you have referred to my “insecure masculinity” several times now. In fact, you see insecure masculinity everywhere, and in nearly every man. You’ve said so multiple times. Your measure for the security of masculinity is whether a man says enough of the things you, in the way you say them, and about the things you wish to talk about.
This isn’t gynocentricism before you, and I don’t discount you because you have a dick. If your name was Andrea, I’d have said the same thing. It’s just me reading what you actually write. Nearly all of Dalrock’s blog is about shining a light on the insanity of feminism, but I don’t call him a narcissist for the simple reason that he doesn’t write like one.
You can call me a tradcon if you want. I get called a lot of things. Beta, Alpha, White Knight, Churchian, tradcon, socon, asshole…usually the name has more to do with what the person doesn’t like, than it does about what I’ve actually said.
@Cane Caldo
“I didn’t use shaming tactics,
You mean besides the veiled accusations of narcissism that I must be “playing the victim card”?
“but you have referred to my “insecure masculinity” several times now. In fact, you see insecure masculinity everywhere, and in nearly every man. You’ve said so multiple times.”
That’s because gynocentric [traditional] masulinitiy is by its very nature, tenuous, conditional on exemplifying male utility and disposability, and a mere instance of almost insurmountable trauma away from being forever robbed from someone. This is a masculinity which cannot survive the recogniton that male vulnerability exists because “real men are never victims” because it turns that very model of masculinity on it’s head – funny how this is the exact attitude of feminists, especially where female perpetrators are concerned.
“Your measure for the security of masculinity is whether a man says enough of the things you, in the way you say them, and about the things you wish to talk about.”
No my measure of masculinity is based on whether a man rejects gynocentrism or is a slave to it – whether they recognise that providing justice for men who are marginalised and isolated, in no way diminishes what it means to be a man; whether they live to be the best they can be, or live to be a tool to be used by society, living for their next root..
“This isn’t gynocentricism before you, and I don’t discount you because you have a dick.”
On the contrary, your entire attitude is blatantly gynocentric – because I wouldn’t just ” man up” about it and worse, dared to point out that what I went through was on the more fortunate end of things and that I am one of countless many men out there (most of whom are too ashamed to ever come forward with their stories), you obfuscated my posts by baselessly claiming they were pure narcissism. If this was about narcissism, then why would I risk constant ridicule and low blows by putting myself out there in a way that made me constantly vulnerable to cheap shots and low blows. If anything, my advocacy falls under the category of sheer masochism.
“I don’t call him a narcissist for the simple reason that he doesn’t write like one. ”
This is where your flawed logic comes through. The fact is that any man who demands more than utility, who demands humanity, will be deemed as narcissistic. After all men are conditioned by our society to be sllaves to women from an early age. The notion that a man should recognise his needs, much less put them first, will always bee deemed as selfish and “narcissistic” by society – no matter how valid or just such a move might be.
“You can call me a tradcon if you want. I get called a lot of things. Beta, Alpha, White Knight, Churchian, tradcon, socon, asshole…usually the name has more to do with what the person doesn’t like, than it does about what I’ve actually said.”
On the contrary, it has everything to do with doubling down on gynocentrism, in spite of the fact ath it facilitates feminism.
@Andrew
My accusations weren’t veiled. Your concern is totally self-centered and you enjoy playing the victim card.
That’s what I said: That you measure everyone else’s masculinity by our recognition of your status as a victim. If we go back up a paragraph, you admit that you believe no man except one like yourself can reject gynocentrism; with your definition of gynocentrism as: Seeing the social order the same way Andrew does.
For example: I’ve said that ALL people, men and women should be judged according to their “human doing” status, and not their “human being” one, but all you can hear is “The Evils of Male Utilitarianism!” I did not say you hadn’t been a victim, or that you shouldn’t mention it, or that it’s not manly to either be a victim or mention it, but all you can see is “You want me to ‘man-up’!”
Public masochism is a form of narcissism. A narcissist will nearly any measure of pain as long as the attention (what you’re advocating is attention for yourself) is on himself…or herself, from whom we more often see this behavior.
That’s one of the reasons I’m pointing you out: Women do this all the time–and because a lot of people really are gynocentric (in a way that has nothing to do with what you’ve said) they give them those women a pass because they are afraid to be seen as piling on “the victim”. Black and “Latino” (a dubious term) leaders also do this reflexively, and for the same reasons. Here at least, you can serve as a case study while I break-down your attempts to reframe the discussion to produce the results you desire. In this case: To get us to recognize you as the greatest victim among us. Now you’re throwing up all sorts of rhetorical and nonsensical chaff to distract us while you work up some plausible deniability. Like:
Are you saying that Dalrock is a narcissist, or are you saying I should have said that he is? On what grounds do you make the assertion that any man who demands more than utility will be deemed a narcissist? And if I’m guilty of the thoughtcrime of thinking of men in terms of their utility, then why haven’t I called Dalrock a narcissist? Why do you not care that I’ve committed thoughtcrime against women when I have treated them in the same manner? Is it humanity for which you cry, or just men? And is it that not because you are a man, and not a woman? What is it acceptable to call a man who puts his needs first regardless of the validity and justness of them? Isn’t this another way of saying that you believe everyone is a narcissist–because justness and validity are beside the point in your way of thinking–and therefore we shouldn’t judge them? Aren’t you really saying that we should not judge you, now, after you have asked us to judge and proclaim you as worthy?
Confusion, back-pedaling, shifting the blame to others, plausible deniability…Your arguments are Legion.
This tactic (which is only concerned with yourself) isn’t thoughtful, or reasonable; it’s ridiculous, and execrable from men and women of any color or age. More importantly: It’s 180 degrees from Christianity.
@ Andrew Richards
Some of your ideas seem like they might makes sense, and some do not.
The problem is that you do not take one concept and follow it, by itself, clearly and concisely, from beginning to end, from starting assumptions and data, to logical consequences. If you did that, you could have a sensible and masculine discussion about your ideas, and any errors would become more obvious.
What you are doing is starting with one strand, and trying to support it by jumping to the middle of an unrelated and equally unclear and unsupported strand, and ending up with what amounts to a bowl of pasta covered with the sauce of your emotions.
I love this topic, it provides an almost endless supply of material. i quit being pissed and started laughing at the women of the USA. I found one thing that is true across the board. Laugh in a womans face when she talks about feminism they get enraged. So I will keep laughing, When I am done and retired from what ever vocation I complete. i will find a woman from outside the USA to hang out with.
I HOPE YOU LIKE IT REDONKULAS.COM
terrence popp
also dalrock your site is off the hook funny. I love how the women of the USA have painted them selves into a corner. then when at 45 they complain about it.
Pingback: What is the Orthosphere? | The Orthosphere
@ REDONKULAS.COM
That is seriously FUNNNNNYYYYY!!!!!!!!
Redonkulas epic Hoe Vs Ex-wife is alot funnier … lol
“My accusations weren’t veiled. Your concern is totally self-centered and you enjoy playing the victim card.”
This from a blatant feminist enabler who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about other men. If you ACTUALLY cared about other men, rather than propping up your own insecure sense of gynocentric masculinity, you’d see that this was about those men who have fallen through the cracks of society and are shit on from all corners. The fact is that when it comes to social issues affecting men on the lower end of society; numbers can be denied, but individuals can’t. If you understood the state of play with regards to this, you’d understand that’s exactly why I’m putting myself out there. Your response and the response of others prove that I am entirely justified in doing so.
“That’s what I said: That you measure everyone else’s masculinity by our recognition of your status as a victim. If we go back up a paragraph, you admit that you believe no man except one like yourself can reject gynocentrism; with your definition of gynocentrism as: Seeing the social order the same way Andrew does.”
I see the social order as it truly is. YOUR measure of masculinity treats any man who happens to fall victim and fall through the cracks as a sub-human piece of shit. And you call yourself a Christian? Irony much.
“For example: I’ve said that ALL people, men and women should be judged according to their “human doing” status, and not their “human being” one, but all you can hear is “The Evils of Male Utilitarianism!” I did not say you hadn’t been a victim, or that you shouldn’t mention it, or that it’s not manly to either be a victim or mention it, but all you can see is “You want me to ‘man-up’!”
Exactly, the moment men fail to be a perpetual Superman, they are subhuman pieces of shit in your eyes. That’s what treating men rather as “human doings” rather than human beings amounts to. It’s ironic that the self-prophesed “Christian” militantly defends an ideology which shits all over one of Christs 2 commandments: “Love one another as I have loved you.” I don’t recall that including treating men with utter contempt the moment they fail to live up to your utilitarian ideals of masculinity.
““If this was about narcissism, then why would I risk constant ridicule and low blows by putting myself out there in a way that made me constantly vulnerable to cheap shots and low blows. If anything, my advocacy falls under the category of sheer masochism.”
Public masochism is a form of narcissism. A narcissist will nearly any measure of pain as long as the attention (what you’re advocating is attention for yourself) is on himself…or herself, from whom we more often see this behavior.”
Yes because it HAS to be narcissism, doesn’t it? Because let’s face it, if you actually had to admit that your response was that of a pharisee, that you actually had the position of a feminist sympathiser, then you’d be forced to remove the log from your own eye – and you just can’t have that, now can you?
“That’s one of the reasons I’m pointing you out: Women do this all the time–and because a lot of people really are gynocentric (in a way that has nothing to do with what you’ve said) they give them those women a pass because they are afraid to be seen as piling on “the victim”.
For starters, that is exactly what gynocentrism is in the case of women (if you actually understood what it was you’d realise that). Secondly you’re falling into the ideological fallacy of letting feminsists define your reality, something PMAFT went into here: http://www.antifeministtech.info/2013/04/tradcons-let-feminists-define-their-reality/
“Black and “Latino” (a dubious term) leaders also do this reflexively, and for the same reasons.”
There is a difference between “affirmative action” and actually engaging in activism when there is genuine and severe discrimination and injustice taking place.
“Here at least, you can serve as a case study while I break-down your attempts to reframe the discussion to produce the results you desire. In this case: To get us to recognize you as the greatest victim among us.”
Wrong. I do what I do to steer the manosphere towards seeing those men who fall through the cracks and actually treating them as a serious and common problem deserving of compassion, rather than some urban myth or subhuman scum. If you understood the politics of the situation, you would know that quoting stats of the hundreds of thousands of victims of abuse wont achieve squat. The only thing that will affect change is those said hundreds of thousands of men speaking out in a way that cannot be silenced and wont go away. You only reach that point by encouraging other men to speak out and that can only happen by other men taking the first step of speaking out. Ergo what I am doing.
“Now you’re throwing up all sorts of rhetorical and nonsensical chaff to distract us while you work up some plausible deniability. Like:
[ed.: In reply to my comment that Dalrock is not a narcissist.]
“This is where your flawed logic comes through. The fact is that any man who demands more than utility, who demands humanity, will be deemed as narcissistic. After all men are conditioned by our society to be sllaves to women from an early age. The notion that a man should recognise his needs, much less put them first, will always bee deemed as selfish and “narcissistic” by society – no matter how valid or just such a move might be.”
Are you saying that Dalrock is a narcissist, or are you saying I should have said that he is?”
My comment wasn’t directed at Dalrock, it was addressing what you said that immediately followed it.
“On what grounds do you make the assertion that any man who demands more than utility will be deemed a narcissist?”
Besides your entire argument in this thread with me you mean?
” And if I’m guilty of the thoughtcrime of thinking of men in terms of their utility, then why haven’t I called Dalrock a narcissist?”
Only you can answer that.
“Why do you not care that I’ve committed thoughtcrime against women when I have treated them in the same manner?”
There is a difference though as the Catherine Kieu case highlights. That sort of behaviour will trigger inherent, gynocentric responses of moral outrage when directed at a woman- with many people ready to dog-pile on someone treating a woman that way. When it comes to men being treated that way, the typical response is either apathy or fits of laughter.
” Is it humanity for which you cry, or just men? And is it that not because you are a man, and not a woman?”
If you actually understood gynocentrism, you’d understand my concern was with the whole of humanity (in fact I’ve also argued against female infantalisation and paternalisation on many occasions because of what it also does to women), but that I focus on men, because very few in society do (solely MRAs to be exact, and even in issues of sexual violence, that isn’t even a given).
“What is it acceptable to call a man who puts his needs first regardless of the validity and justness of them?”
Yes because any man who doesn’t live his life by the motto of “women and children to the lifeboats [and the men can go to hell]” HAS to be a complete narcissist, in your eyes. Also kudos for proving my point for implying that the epidemic of male suicide, issues affecting male abuse and violence sufferers and male destitution have no validity or justness to them.
I wont even dignify the obfuscation that follows with a response as it doesn’t deserve one.
“This tactic (which is only concerned with yourself) isn’t thoughtful, or reasonable; it’s ridiculous, and execrable from men and women of any color or age. More importantly: It’s 180 degrees from Christianity.”
Go back and read “The Parable of the Good Samaritan” and get back to me when you’re not acting like a complete pharisee.
@eon The big problem is that I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t here. If I go into the length needed to explore gynocentrism, then people use the TL;DNR ad hominem as MackPUA has already demonstrated. If I go for brevity, then I’m attacked for not exploring ideas properly. No matter what I say here, with the exception of the minority; the majority of people have proven they are solely interested in purely to try and make what I’m saying go away.
I will say this much though – all ideological roads lead to gynocentrism. If you unearth the foundations of traditional masculinity, traditional femininity, feminism, the paternalisation of women, feminism, traditional conservativism, chivalry and hypergamy, to name a few things, what you will find is gynocentrism – the pragmatic survivalist notion that the most valuable thing in society is a woman’s womb and that all men and women must fit into prescribed roles and models of behaviour which protect and facilitate the womb for the sake of perpetuating the species.
Now people might fire back that gyno refers to women in the Ancient Greek, but I would respond by pointing out what differentiates a man from a wombman (typo intentional).
I love hypergamy, it prevents guys like Andrew Richards from getting laid …
I thank feminists for making Andrew Richards jerk off to porn, instead of pro-creating
Im pretty sure AR’s inability to get laid, proves theres justice in the world…!!!
Btw I recommend every1 get an MRI & a braincell count, if you’re stupid enough read Andrew Richards posts …
Even gynocologists dont use the word gynocentrism as often as AR …
If you replace gynocentrism with… doesnt know crap about mens issues centrism …. his posts magically make a lot more sense … lol
Its catchy & has more syllables then AR repeating the word gynocentrism about a million times every time trolls the crap out of a blog …
Or how about loose the gyno & replace it with corn-holio centrism, its catchy & Andrew Richards talks out of his corn holio, every time he opens his yap …
Btw dont introduce Andrew Richards to your mom, you really dont him interrogating your mom about her gynocentrism …
No small surprise that MackPUA would say something like this. After all he has no problem being culpable in family courts forcing 12 year old boys to pay child support to female pedophiles – just as long as he gets his next fuck and is able to take part in a community (the PUA community) which exploits the insecurities of men through overpriced seminars at $1500 a pop.
Notice how he immediately gravitates to the “you must be a dateless loser” slur because he has no valid rebuttal – the exact same tactic as feminists. Small surprise that as Cerberus Alpha recently pointed out, the PUA community is nothing but a pack of feminist enabling parasites: http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/why-are-men-more-violent.html
@Andrew
I forgot to add lies to the list of your arguments. As I said: they are Legion.
What you need is to go and be someone’s friend; to be concerned about their problems instead of your own.
Helping individuals is good, but activism is not helping individuals. The sin of the pharisee could be expressed as activism: They loved God with their lips, but hated Him in their hearts. Our Lord’s way is the shepherd’s way. The farmer’s way. The carpenter’s way. The master’s way. The servant’s way. It is the way of what good you DO, not the good you speak. How much more evil is it to speak nonsense that discourages doing good, and yet call it good?
If you have given everything to Christ, then no one can take from you, but only from your master, and He has already promised to repay. If you are crucifying yourself, then nobody could kill you. The truth is not in you because you do not have even the tiniest faith that these things are true. In the meantime, do not call yourself a Christian.
“@Andrew
I forgot to add lies to the list of your arguments. As I said: they are Legion.
What you need is to go and be someone’s friend; to be concerned about their problems instead of your own.”
Again, more of the same strawman from you. What you willfully refuse to grasp is that my experiences have given me a something for men in a similar situation to what I went through, but far worse off – empathy. The fact that you insist on this all being about me advancing my own “plight” even when I’m in a situation where I’m well on the road to recovery and have the support I need in place, speaks volumes. My entire focus is on the plight of others who have bee abused and the destitute, people I have never even met, but whom I share a bond with through what I have endured. IF you actually posessed any empathy for the downtrodden and abused men of society, you would recognise that.
“Helping individuals is good, but activism is not helping individuals. The sin of the pharisee could be expressed as activism: They loved God with their lips, but hated Him in their hearts. Our Lord’s way is the shepherd’s way. The farmer’s way. The carpenter’s way. The master’s way. The servant’s way. It is the way of what good you DO, not the good you speak. How much more evil is it to speak nonsense that discourages doing good, and yet call it good?”
On the contrary, activism is speaking out for those who are unable to speak for themselves. It is to live the parable of the Good Samaritan and follow the example of the Good Thief. You see the speck in my eye yet refuse to see the log on your own eye. What I speak is the truth about who our civilisation harms, why it harms them and where things need to change. The irony of your comment here is that it is you whom it applies to.
Also you bring up the faith of the mustard seed, another irony. I am doing what I am doing in spite of the system, tradcons, feminists and a large chunk of the manosphere opposing it and opening myself up to ridicule and abuse for doing so, and I have copped ridicule for it from all of the above groups. If I didn’t have a strong faith that the system could change and that men could eventually end up in a society where they were treated as human beings and with compassion, then I wouldn’t be doing what I am doing.
“If you have given everything to Christ, then no one can take from you, but only from your master, and He has already promised to repay. If you are crucifying yourself, then nobody could kill you. The truth is not in you because you do not have even the tiniest faith that these things are true. In the meantime, do not call yourself a Christian.”
You are a wolf in sheep’s clothing and your heart is of Satan – your tongue speaks falsehoods in the name of Christ. You support contempt for the weak, argue that teaching people to love themselves enough to recognise the value and dignity of their lives, to see themselves as God sees them is evil, and that having empathy for others and fighting for them is narcissistic and selfish. Your words are devoid of the Holy Spirit and of Christ. Your mind might know God’s word, but your heart is devoid clearly of it.
@Andrew
What did I say that was false? Quotes please.
No, I don’t. Quotes, please.
Quotes please. Also: Provide some scripture passage that says we should try or work to love ourselves; rather than assuming that we simply do.
I just quoted you a passage where God explicitly instructs is to see ourselves as unworthy servants. Unworthy. Servants. Please find me a scripture that you think puts a different spin on it. Please note the importance of how we are to see ourselves, and not how we are to treat others. How we treat others is very important (as I’ve emphasized), but
Over and over you are only and ever about proclaiming your worthiness. God’s way for us is to see our unworthiness, and accept that He still wants to use us DESPITE our unworthiness. It is His pleasure to use the low things of this world to do great things. Your way is to call the low great. That’s very different. It’s psychological bullshit. It’s self-esteem-ism. It’s satanic in the true sense of the word; which is self-worship.
Quotes, please. What I’ve said is that you have no empathy but for yourself. Because you can only see yourself as really real, you extrapolate that–since I have expressed insufficient empathy for your liking–that I must be the same with everyone. Yet I have shown that I am not. Of the hundreds of commentors here, and and the dozens who’ve shared their own stories of pain we can count on one hand the number I’ve accused of such narcissism as I have you. Meanwhile, there is an abundance of written evidence that I take other mens’ pain very seriously; even yours to some extent. You just don’t like what I have to say. I haven’t disputed your suffering at all, but said because of your weakness you ought to be doing something else other than griping about “gynocentrism” and activism.
You desire to be a shepherd, but perversely you’ve decided that the way to save the sheep is to be more adept at sheepiness than they are; to beat them in a rush to the center of the herd. No, the shepherd calls us out, transforms us into shepherds, and immediately sets us to work; men over men; men over women; women over children. The empathic shepherd does not ba-ah with the troubled sheep, nor does he convince the herd to recognize the unique worth of the trampled sheep. He simply pulls him out of danger with his crook. That’s what I’m advising you: Do something else. You cannot lead here, and ultimately your plan is just to trample other sheep. All collectivism in service to itself goes this way.
If Satan were in my heart then it would come out in my speech because the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart. My speech would be lies, as satan is the father of lies. But it is clear, plain, contextual scripture that I rebuke you with, and I quote you back to yourself to reveal the incoherence and self-worship of your statements. You rage in response. (Conversely, no one here understands or believes you; whether Christian, pagan, or atheist.) Bear in mind that those rebukes are themselves given in love–for your benefit and instruction, and anyone else reading. You would rather I made you feel comfortable and accepted. No. That’s not what my master requires of me, and I am an unworthy servant just doing my duty.
@Andrew
First rule of holes: stop digging.
You speak and all I can hear is Look At Me, I’m a Victim! You Are All Worthless Gynocentric Feminists If You Don’t Agree With Me.
Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
The fact that you can’t even come close to understanding what I hear in your writing indicates an inability on your part to see anything from someone else’s point of view, let alone understand it if not agree with it. Oh right, I forgot, I’m gynocentric scum whose writing is full of own goals, I’m sure you will attack me again, but just in case you have an attack-free thought streak, you might consider how your tone, your condescension, your words, your context are being received. For all I know, there might be a smidgen of validity buried inside your message. But it is clouded. I surely hope you don’t talk in real life like you do here.
Gynocentrism – of or pertaining to feminine interests. Victimhood as an identity such as yours is a typical feminine reaction. It’s very unattractive in men.
@Cane
“What did I say that was false? Quotes please.”
“Helping individuals is good, but activism is not helping individuals. The sin of the pharisee could be expressed as activism: They loved God with their lips, but hated Him in their hearts. Our Lord’s way is the shepherd’s way. The farmer’s way. The carpenter’s way. The master’s way. The servant’s way. It is the way of what good you DO, not the good you speak. How much more evil is it to speak nonsense that discourages doing good, and yet call it good?”
Yet Christ tells us to “love your enemy” and to “love one another as I have loved you”. He also tells us he loves us so much that he will abandon his entire flock to save just one of us.
“Quotes please. Also: Provide some scripture passage that says we should try or work to love ourselves; rather than assuming that we simply do.
to see themselves as God sees them is evil
I just quoted you a passage where God explicitly instructs is to see ourselves as unworthy servants. Unworthy. Servants. Please find me a scripture that you think puts a different spin on it. Please note the importance of how we are to see ourselves, and not how we are to treat others. How we treat others is very important (as I’ve emphasized), but ”
What we are called to do is be humble. The ways of self loathing, hatred and fear are the ways of Satan. Fear breeds from insecurity and the Christ told us many times how much the father loves us and warned us against fear and anxiety. Your ways here are not God’s ways.
“Over and over you are only and ever about proclaiming your worthiness. God’s way for us is to see our unworthiness, and accept that He still wants to use us DESPITE our unworthiness. It is His pleasure to use the low things of this world to do great things. Your way is to call the low great. That’s very different. It’s psychological bullshit. It’s self-esteem-ism. It’s satanic in the true sense of the word; which is self-worship.”
And here you show your true colours and they are those of the pharisee. Christ said that blessed are the poor, the meek and those who hunger and thirst for justice – speaking of the rewards awaiting them in heaven. He also spoke of humbling the proud and the strong. He made it clear that those who make themselves first will be last and those who make themselves last will be first. The fact is that to accept Christ’s love, we have to accept that we are worthy of being loved in that manner. His way is to teach love, to make us instruments of that love. His 2 great commandments were to simply love God completely and to love one another as he has loved us.
Over and over again, I have proclaimed that we need to treat men and our boys as brothers, loving them as Christ loves us and that the system needs to change so that society does just that, yet you rebuke me for it whilst hypocritically claiming to be a Christian.
Oh and one last thing, with the exception of St Paul, who he reduced to a blind man before his conversion anyway; all of the Apostles and Jesus closest friends were “the low”. He spent his time with the tax collectors (even making one an Apostle), the prostitutes, the lepers, the outcasts.
You’re exactly right when you say that exhalting the low is his pleasure, because of how much he loves us – so much so that he gave his only son so that we might have eternal live.
“If Satan were in my heart then it would come out in my speech because the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart.”
And your heart is utterly contemptuous to the types of people Christ reached out to, and even formed his inner circle from. As demonstrated by exchanges such as this:
“[M]y measure of masculinity is based on whether a man rejects gynocentrism or is a slave to it
That’s what I said: That you measure everyone else’s masculinity by our recognition of your status as a victim. If we go back up a paragraph, you admit that you believe no man except one like yourself can reject gynocentrism; with your definition of gynocentrism as: Seeing the social order the same way Andrew does.”
In other words, you choose to support 12 year old boys being raped by pedophiles and then being forced to pay them child support. You choose to support false accusations of rape by women going unpunished. You choose to support battered men being arbitrarily arrested under primary aggressor laws where they are subjected to serial violence and rape from other inmates. You choose to support the epidemic of male suicides out there because of the very society which happily allows the above injustices against men and others to be perpetuated in the service of female infantalisation.
For to support the gynocentric model of masculinity is to support the above injustices – something Christ would never support. Christ’s heart is one of tears for these men and boys; yours is one of stone which has expelled Christ’s mercy, compassion and love. I will pray for you that you come to recognise it and turn to him in heart, not just in mind.
@Angeleno The reason you can’t comprehend what I am saying is because you are doubly ignorant. You refuse to see the truth, instead choosing to take the blue pill. What I am saying goes against everything society teaches men to be and yet is the truth. You cannot grasp it because you are still convinced that traditional masculinity is a good thing- even though it has given us a feminist movement that keeps on getting worse and was the inevitable result of adding modern medicine, science and technology to he social paradigm of the pre-industrial age. As a result your mind is closed to the truth and you rail against it.
@Andrew
Buried in all that you just replied to me* is the seed of Satanism I was talking about, and it is around this that you have constructed your entire worldview.
This is monstrously wrong. It is vehemently anti-Christian. Let me re-state that sentence in various ways without losing any meaning, but yet dropping the self-esteem claptap that our society simmers in.
“Until we judge ourselves worthy, Christ’s love is not worthy enough for us.”
“If Christ does not share my view of myself, He does not love me.”
“Christ can only love me as much as I love myself.”
“I deserve Christ’s love because I’m worth it.”
And on and on… Every way we can state your guiding principle it comes down to you putting yourself on a level with Christ, and then judging what He has done (love you) as good because it’s good in your eyes. In your world, Christ’s love is a reflection of your own love for yourself; else it is not real. Christians know–by faith–that it is we who are the reflections made in His image, and not the other way around. If you loved Christ and had even a glimpse of who He is and what He has done you would not say these things. And if you were His, when they were pointed out to you, you would repent. I know this, because His word says so. His sheep know the sound of His voice.
You’re your own god. It’s not working out for you. And it’s obvious to everyone that it’s not working for you. I saw this in your first post, and it runs through each one since. You are a terrible and impotent god, as any of us would be. Repent.
This is what a brother sounds like.
*None of which were clear restatements of my words. Your restatements had zero content or context of what I wrote; going so far as to accuse me of aiding and abetting pedophilia and false rape allegations, when I never spoke of them. Those are absurd feminist/race-hustler tactics. How pathetic.
…and she enters at her own risk
Hi Andrew, my name is Hannah. I have read all of your comments on this post (and then laughed when I read MackPUA’s warning not too!). Your writing is far too intellectual for me – but 8oxer’s comment helped me to think never mind 🙂 I believe I can discern something of what is going on.
You sound like you are a very broken man.
You mention that you are a SURVIVOR of certain things. The fact that you have endured suffering at the hands of others is sad to hear but does not make you a survivor!
You are alive.
This should be to God’s glory, not your own. Your comments draw attention to yourself rather than to God’s mercy and grace.
You need to stop labelling yourself as ‘such and such Survivor’… if for no other reason than to stop defining yourself by what has happened TO you in a fallen world.
My father taught me very early on that LIFE IS NOT FAIR. A reading of Job will attest to this. But who are we that we should point our finger at God? That we should suggest He got it all wrong?
It sounds like you’re attacking God’s created order in your comments. I think you are ashamed of your own masculinity.
God created man and commanded him to ‘Go forth and multiply!’. God instructed man to be the provider and protector. He created woman to be the man’s helper.
Being abused as a child robbed you of innocence, and it destroyed your modesty.
Having been abused doesn’t make your perspective right, or those that disagree with you wrong.
I have only recently come across the manosphere and it is a breath of fresh air!!!
The ugly lie of feminism needs to be crushed with a counter-revolution by reclaiming patriarchy.
Cane Caldo has patiently pointed out where he believes you are in error but you choose to not have eyes to see nor ears to hear.
Why? Because I think you’re more interested in crusading than in healing and moving on from your wounds.
Perhaps I am wrong and if so I apologise. I don’t mean to offend you, but to let you know my observation and perhaps consider if there is any truth in it.
Alternatively, when you go on the attack with suggestions such as Cane being in support of pedophilia – then I wonder if you’re not here a la Fight Club, in which case – carry on!
@Cane The error is yours.
““The fact is that to accept Christ’s love, we have to accept that we are worthy of being loved in that manner.”
This is monstrously wrong. It is vehemently anti-Christian. ”
Actually Christ himself said “knock and the door shall be opened to you”.
In other words we have to choose to accept God’s love. That in turn means we have to believe that we are worthy of love.
Furthermore you claim that it I am going against Christ, yet it is the likes of you and Hannah who place yourself at odds with God.
“Matthew 25:31-46
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
You seek not to comfort those who are broken, but to spurn and condemn them – more concerned with your own sense of masculinity than you are with men who are broken. You choose not the ways of God, but the ways of he world. Faith without works is dead, and as you have demonstrated by your attitude to the lowly, your faith is a dried up burn out husk.
@Hannah You are dead wrong, and if you were actually engaging your brain rather than simply dismissing this as TL;DNR, you would actually see that. What you and others fail to grasp is that the model of masculinity you so proudly cling to is the noose by which feminists are hanging us by and which tradcons have hung men who have outlived their usefulness by for decades. If you dispute that, then consider it’s tradcon betas in law enforcement and the judiciary who actually enforce corrupt feminist laws, including primary aggressor laws under the likes of VAWA.
What you fail to grasp is that the common argument used by feminists and tradcons when it comes to male abuse victims is that reporting figures are low that it must be something men do to women. The only way you combat that is by getting other abused men to come forward. For that to happen, a small, brave minority have to step into the limelight to light the way and take the heat with it (stepping back into the shadows once their work is done).
You say “life isn’t fair”? Tell that to the fathers whose children are used as weapons in divorce proceedings by a corrupt family court system. Tell that to battered men who call the police, only to be arrested, thrown in jail and then serially beaten and raped. Tell that to the homeless men who are the butt of all jokes in society. Tell that to diasbled and mentally ill men who are treated sub-humanly by society and are largely regardless as “useless eaters” by society. Tell that to 12 year old boys who are raped by female sexual predators, only to be court ordered to pay child support when it results in a child. Oh and fyi, at least 3 of those instances have never happened to me, so if it was just about me as you and others keep trying to pretend it is, then why would I bring them up?
If these things were happening to women, the media, politicians and civil rights groups would be up in arms. Yet when it happens to a man, who cares – after all men are just walking atms, human shields and dicks on legs right? Actually I take that back, they consider it a good laugh – as evidenced by the response by the USA to what Catherine Kieu did to her husband (and don’t tell me that anyone would even remotely feel like laughing if a husband drugged, tied up his wife, cut out her clitoris and threw it in the garbage disposal because she asked for a divorce).
Everyone here CLAIMS to rail against feminism, yet for the most part they worship a model of masculinity which perpetuates it. The moment you claim that “men are never victims” you are espousing the same line as feminists who claim that “only women are victims; only men are perpetrators”. When you double down on gynocentrism like that, you give feminists yet another opportunity to perpetuate their lies and say “look over here, it’s the patriarchy again”.
It’s ugly cousin is the notion that a penis equates to arbitrary consent. The fact is that that model of masculinity looks at the rape of a 12 year old girl as an horrific tragedy. Conversely when it’s a12 year old boy, society views it as a rite of passage and pops open the champagne, as in society’s mind that child is now a fully grown man. Small surprise that when the rape of a boy results in a female pedophile getting pregnant and giving birth, that boy, now deemed a man in society’s eyes, is expected to “man up to his responsibilities” and pay child support to the very pedophile that raped him, even if she’s been convicted of child sex offenses pertaining to it. Again, something which has never happened to me, it just disgusts me, because unlike the vast majority of people here, I actually give a shit about other men, especially those men who are most marginalised, as opposed to propping up my own masculinity.
Yet apparently what I went through driving me to fight for those men who are the most marginalised in society, somehow makes me a “mangina”, a gnostic and a narcissist. But hey by all means, keep doubling down on gynocentrism, the very lifeblood of feminism and perpetuating the very masculine notions which are used to justify feminist injustices against men.
hehe you said ‘doubling down on gynocentrism’ again! Oh dear… weeks into the manosphere and already I’m being a bully 🙂
Really Andrew, life ISN’T fair! I’d say it to anyone in the situations you described.
The enemy is indiscriminate, and we’re in HIS world. Nobody gets a free pass.
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour.”
You could use your empathy for those who are hurting in the appropriate situation… this isn’t it.
Reducing everybody here to YOUR level of functioning won’t work.
@hannah “hehe you said ‘doubling down on gynocentrism’ again!”
Because that’s exactly what you and others here are doing. If you
“Really Andrew, life ISN’T fair! I’d say it to anyone in the situations you described.
The enemy is indiscriminate, and we’re in HIS world. Nobody gets a free pass.
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour.””
There is an old adage “all that need happen in the world for evil to prosper is for good men [and women] to do nothing”. By choosing the “do nothing” route, you and others are actively culpable in enabling feminism through giving it a free pass, and by choosing to double down on gynocentric masculinity you are actively facilitating it.
“You could use your empathy for those who are hurting in the appropriate situation… this isn’t it.”
On the contrary, calling out tradcons, gamers and feminists on their contempt towards men at their most marginalised is taking the battle to the enemy of men and boys. Also who said this is my only form of activism?
“Reducing everybody here to YOUR level of functioning won’t work.”
If you think that understanding the REAL enemy of men and boys is a reduction of functioning and combating it wherever you see it, then you seriously need to look up what the word “reducing” actually means.
@Hannah
I think your highly underestimating your ability to understand an intellectual conversation
Yes, AR is a broken man
His broken penis brings all the chicks to the yard … he has to charge …
His broken penis also prevents him from fapping off to porn …
Which is why his posts make no sense whatsoever … his broken penis also prevents him from being gay …
Basically he’s doubly screwed, but not in a good way …
The problem with AR is he brings up issues which have nothing to do with this blog … or even the comments he’s replying to
He just spews out walls of text attacking anyone, who tries to make sense of his insane illogical irrational walls of text
The guy is nuttier then a feminist protesting Burkhas & women practising abstinence in Iraq …
Btw I personally want to thank all the feminists out there for preventing AR from getting pussy …
I also want to thank feminists for being too bitchy to have sex with manginas …
Feminists you rock!!!
Feminists your pussies rock!!!
Call me!!! I have skittles … bring the movies …
Hannah wrote:
You mention that you are a SURVIVOR of certain things. The fact that you have endured suffering at the hands of others is sad to hear but does not make you a survivor!
Being a “survivor” is something that is highly touted in gynocentric* books and talk shows as yet another feminist merit badge – hat tip to Dalrock for coining that term.
You are alive. This should be to God’s glory, not your own. Your comments draw attention to yourself rather than to God’s mercy and grace.
He’s narcissistic and self-absorbed. Has anyone noticed how much more obvious those traits are in a man than a woman?
* Everybody by now should be sick of that word, but since Andrew loves to use it so much, I’ll mention it just for him.
So let me get this straight, a PUA comes out and praises feminism, completely letting the cat out of the bag that this blog post by Cerberus Alpha was spot on: http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/why-are-men-more-violent.html
Then a tradcon:
a) who supposedly was making a script to block me reveals he hasn’t done so,
b) accuses me of gynocentrism, even though the acknowledgement of MALE victims/survivors is completely anti-gynocentric and
c) then finishes off by claiming that a I as male abuse survivor is being narcissistic because I’m offering himself up as an example of the epidemic of male abuse survivors out there and have said repeatedly that my reasons for doing this are-
i) to work towards creating an environment where other men can come forward and
ii) as a flow on from that have that many visible male abuse survivors out there that they cannot be dismissed and as a result, the entire feminist narative on violence collapses like a hous of cards.
Pretty much what you expect from an “anti-feminist” tradcon. After all they’re generally as hypoctritical and full of shit as a Jacksonian “christians” are.
Agreed, mackPUA. Andrew is so messed up, so damaged, with capacity to reason to match, that reading his error-riddled posts is a complete waste of time. He should be in therapy, or at least reading and trying to learn, rather than posting when he literally has nothing both valid and coherent to say.
@Luke If you were trying to be utterly ironic, you succeeded. You are doubly ignorant of the ideological foundations of feminism, contemptuous of the issues facing the most marginalised in society and a classic example in terms of your doubling down on feminism of why the system is so filled with misandry and feminist corruption that even child sex victims as young as 12 are enslaved by the system whilst female pedophiles are given a regular income from their child sex victims.
Of course when you’re agreeing with a man who has openly professed that he loves hypergamy and feminists like MackPUA, you’re proving my point for me in spades. Oh and great job following through with a feminist style shaming tactic, proving my point even more.
go to REDONKULAS.COM
I am going to have several more skits on video about the crazyness that goes on in the world and how most wont talk about or acknowedge it. Topics like criss cross you bet the wrong dog. This one will address how many beta males transform into alpha males. also how women divorce them in search of a alpha male who is falling into beta status.
wrong bongo bad reasons to get married
hitch me not the reasons and discription why males dont get married
greengrassitus the phenomina of women and there jumping in for greener grass, but usally in the end if they are luck they get the same grass in a different form.
red flags for drama the caution signs all women give off that they are prone to drama and any more then 2 get you voted off the island.
dont ignor the crazy and the 7 consiquences if you do
esciamo brothers is a discription of men who hit the same piece of slot C. The code is in my vidoes on REDONKULAS.COM
I to have grown sick of the feminist world, I just laugh at it and I hope the femistists HATE ME for it. 2/3 of women file for divorce, less than 3% reconsile. 10 years after the divorce up to half regret there decision. I am now on almost every internet dating site there is gathering intelligence for my next round of video’s that data is absolutlu brutal but halarious, “why”? because pain looks good on other people.
REDONKULAS.COM check the vids that are there and pass them around
@Luke
It seems to me that Andrew has swallowed a great deal of therapy, and that therapy is what he is barfing all over the comments, here. He’s been subjected to the good cop/bad cop torture routine of the world. The bad cops abused him, and then he was sent into the arms of the “good cops” for re-education and confession of his errors; he sin being that he didn’t love himself enough. Now he believes that the key to stopping the bad cop beatings is self-love. So, logically, he becomes a “good cop” on the therapy side; preaching self-love to others. In this way, he believes he can rescue others (especially other men) from the bad cops. He says to himself, “If only we can get everyone on the good cop side, then no one will be a bad cop anymore.”
Since Jesus is obviously not a bad cop, then Andrew believes that Jesus is a good cop. Therefore, he must interpret Jesus’ words as being about self-love; about turning others into good cops. This is not entirely without logic.
The world sells the phony story of Christ as “The Bestest Cop Ever!” because it serves its purpose. The lies start with the idea that Jesus is a cop. He’s not. Christ frees people from prison–people who DESERVE to be there. Christ saves those WORTHY of death. Christ came for the bad cops!
All the while, Andrew knows that there is nothing he could have done to deserve being abused as a child, yet he was.
And it is offensive to his self-love that Jesus came to save not just people like Andrew, but the child molesters and feminists, too. (It never dawns on him that we might describe such people as the poorest of all in spirit.) Worse: What does that say about Andrew, for Jesus to save him alongside the pedophile, and the feminist? It says Andrew is no better than they. Andrew is unworthy. Since Andrew has been conditioned by the good cop/bad cop routine to believe that unworthy people get beaten this scares the crap out of him. So, he reinforces his efforts to become a better good cop; doing what good cops do: preach the gospel of self love.
@Andrew
What is truly astonishing about the parables of Jesus is how circumspect they are. The listener can see himself in each of the aspects of the story. Sometimes when I read one, I am the beaten man in the road. Sometimes I am the passer-bys. Sometimes I am the Samaritan, and other times I am the robber. So are you. They key is to know who you are in various situations. You were the beaten man. Now you are the robber.
Scripture is plain that we are unworthy; from John the Baptist:
to the faithful centurion:
to the Canaanite Woman:
And the woman at the well, and the woman caught in adultery, and on and on.
You have been lied to, Andrew. You were the beaten man in the road, and now you are the robber–as all those robbers were, too.
Pingback: Continuing the discussion. | Dalrock
Cane Caldo – ”It seems to me that Andrew has swallowed a great deal of therapy, and that therapy is what he is barfing all over the comments, here.”
Damn! There goes the neighborhood. Whiny-ass girly-man attention-whore Andrew “Every body look at men, I’m a victim” Richards has discovered Dalrock
Now, it’s going to be an endless string of tirades against anyone who A) doesn’t believe that the MRM can be successful with men posing as the new “victim class”, B) anyone who refused to eschew their natural masculinity (because acting like the man you were born to be might somehow benefit some women and might therefore – horror of horrors – support “male disposability”), and C) anyone who refuses to accept him as the ideal model for all other men to emulate.
Fair warning: this clown accepts no arguments other than his own (trying to debate him will be like hitting your head against the wall), and will always insist on getting the last word in. If you don’t wish to support his efforts to derail every single thread with HIS gospel, you’d be well advised to simply ignore his bait. Let him call you a TradCon and a Feminist, and let him claim that you do not care about men. Because, unless you are willing to tow his line, that’s what he’s going to repeat ad nauseum.
So, if you should find yourself wasting time thinking you might be able to talk some sense into him, only to find nothing more than his petty ankle-biting and name-calling – don’t say I didn’t warn you.
On the contrary, calling out tradcons, gamers and feminists
Oh no, not another third way (I’d overload this box with zeros if I could type a number representing how many “third ways” there are), not another above the fray claim calling out everyone else because of some unintelligible minutia that supposedly differentiates his belief set from others even if there is no difference.
Let it go. I do not think I have ever seen anyone who is bought deeply into third way-ism change their stripes. They cannot, because they then have to stop explaining to everyone else who by definition do not get it. We, all of us tradcon-gamer-feminists, we cannot get it.
@slwerner
I have enjoyed it. It’s not an opportunity to change Andrew’s mind (heart), but it’s been a chance to say the things I love to say. God will do the changing or not. I just dig bringing everything back to the Gospel.
If name-calling bothered me I’d have been gone from here a long time ago.
@empath
It hurts me when you talk like that.
@Andrew:
I am concerned about you. What I’m gonna say is well meaning to you. It appears to me that your apparent persistence in arguing your points is not really about you merely debating. It appears to me that your continued arguments are either conscious or subconscious attempts at further victimization. You know how some of the folks here will respond to you already. They will call you names and disrespect you as much as they can. Some want you to feel bad. You are inviting that negativity toward you for the purpose of affirming yourself as a victim in your mind.
I advise you to really consider what I said and stop arguing with these folks. You have come to far in your recovery to backslide yourself into inviting further victimization. We are all imperfect, flawed, fallen humans, residing in a fallen world that actually has a real devil. You will never be completely healed this side of eternity. The other bloggers will also not be completely healed this side of eternity. I know darn well I will not either! All we can do is make ourselves available to our Creator and try. The best we can do, according to the scriptures, is approach Christlikedness.
Peace of mind to you……….
A crucial part of the Catholic Mass that emphasizes that we are NOT worthy but it is the Lord who takes away our sins and that we are called to receive communion through His Grace. The last thing we say before we take communion at *every* Mass:
All: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
Priest:: This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.
All:: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.
I don’t know how this is phrased in Anglican and Protestant worship, but I will say it is crystal clear in Catholic worship that our worthiness is not up to us, it is up to the Lord and that self-love is not commanded of us. Instead Jesus says, “This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 15:12)
Jesus raised ordinary men to be His Apostles. That included a tax collector. Tax collectors of that time were the most hated people in society. Sort of like the anger we have toward pedophiles and other abusers today. This former tax collector subsequently wrote one of the Gospels. The message is that we are ALL eligible to receive His Grace, no matter what our state of sin is. Whether we were the robbers or the victims, as Cane puts it, is immaterial to our eligibility for salvation. That is not to absolve us of the temporal consequences of our sins, but that is the opportunity to redeem our souls in the eyes of the Lord regardless of the temporal circumstances we find ourselves in. That is the true power of Our Lord and our faith.
@Random Angeleno
Amen! Amen!
@ Random Angelo & Cane
Sorry gentlemen – one has to be worthy of Yahshua and “show some class” and be considered “worthy”
In addition, lets stay in the scriptures:)
It is not about “accepting “Jesus” it is Him “accepting you” – if you doubt this re-read Matt 7:22-23, 2 Cor 6:15-7:1, Matt 22:12, Rev 3:4,Matthew 10:37-38, 2 Thess 1:15: @ 1:11, 2;12, Heb 11:38.
But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy ~Rev 3:4
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36)
In summary, they are called, chosen, and faithful (Rev 17:14). Do a word search for “worthy” and read the context and then go from there.
Btw, consider Judas.
Was he called – yes. Was he chosen- yes. Was he faithful- no.
So close- yet so far……..
~Shalom
Here we go …
Bible bashing religious idiots …
Do I have to remind you guys, Jesus was anti-religious ….
Christianity was always supposed to be anti-religion, anti-organised religion, anti-government & tyranny
In short Jesus was supposed to set man free from the stupidity of religion
Instead of the bullshit pussy whipped personal jesus movement its turned into today …
The biggest piece of many nonsenses alluded to in this thread by one particular poster is the idea that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and its associated placement of self-actualization at the pinnacle of such hierarchy, is either (1) Christian (it is not) or (2) useful for a social order (it is not). Obviously the poster has been rather thoroughly brain-washed by contemporary liberalism to the point where he sees the only way out a more perfect form of the same liberalism — double down on equality, double down on individual self-actualization, double-down on individualism, and so on, all to basically get the “gains of feminist liberation” for men. That is feminism for men, no matter how you slice it. Its only real beef with feminism as it exists today is that it doesn’t go far enough, and therefore betrays both it’s own stated ideals and those of the larger post-enlightenment liberal consensus. And so it prescribes more of the same, only this time without the hypocrisies of feminism. This is the classic problem of MRAs, really. The solution they offer is a world even more dystopic than the present one — a world which completely revolves around individual self-actualization, a horrific vision of radically individualist alienation, massively decreased social bonds and trust, and a swirling of the sexual goods even more towards the top of the tower than is the case today. And yet they can’t see this, blinded as they are by their belief in the merits of egalitarianism.
@Mackpua
“Christianity was always supposed to be anti-religion, anti-organised religion, anti-government & tyranny”
“In short Jesus was supposed to set man free from the stupidity of religion”
This is wrong on all counts.
– Judaism is a set of laws, culture, race, and physical geography that “Divinity” entered into a covenant with. This can be said of no other race of people or geography (It is difficult to sum it up – it is a all encompassing relationship) .
-Yahweh is a “revelation” not a religion. HIS precepts are not regarding religion they are the ruling field of absolute law in the entire universe that consist of moral, social, and cerimonial laws.
The law of Moses is in full effect and is the Law of the Spirit of Life in Yahshua – take your pick. One is either a slave of sin or a servent of righteousness. There are no free moral agents despite current evangelical teachings.
Yahshua slammed the religious Pharisees for “adding” to the law and superceeding the law of Moses with the law of men(ie Talmud) as seen in Mark 7 “you leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” Heaven and earth will pass away before a apostrophe is removed from the law / precepts
II. Anti organized. Wrong again. G_D is very very organized. I suggest reading Titus and 1&2 Timothy regarding the laity which is based on Jewish synagogue. Christianity turned into flat out paganism when it became accepted into Roman culture.
III Anti-government / Tyranny
Wrong again. We are commanded to obey governments within reason and even pay taxe since they are ordained by G_D.
In addition, G_D is bring HIS tyrannical government to the established on the earth in which people will be ruled with a rod of iron and smashed like a clay plot if they disobey.
It is not a enterprise as currently depicted in American. This will soon come to a end.
Allow me to suggest rereading the scripture.
~Shalom
mackPUA: Thanks for your comment earlier – I appreciate it 🙂
@ Michael: “Yahweh is a “revelation” not a religion.” “Christianity turned into flat out paganism when it became accepted into Roman culture.”
Agreed, and nicely worded.
I believe in the Creator of Heaven and Earth – the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
My family is Judeo-Christian – but the word Christian is getting muddier… My father is preferring to say he is a Messianic Gentile.
We celebrate the Feasts of the Lord as described in Leviticus and no longer observe the traditions of man as their roots are pagan.
The Messiah didn’t come to do away with the law but to FILL it!
Shabbat Shalom 🙂
@Hannah
WOW !!!! 🙂
Your spot on ! When I read what you wrote – it gives me hope ! I love “Messianic Gentiles”
Shabbat Shalom to you and yours 🙂 !!!
It’s amazing how many men here are so deeply ruled by fear that they’re oblivious to it – many examples of whom are in this comments thread (ironic too that certain individuals can bring up the “good cop/bad cop” dynamic without even recognising they’re currently playing the part of “bad cop”).
What MRAs get is the system causes men to be trapped in a system of slavery through fear. If a man isn’t stoic enough then there will always be a threat of his masculinity being denied to him. The phenomenon of hyper-masculinity exists for one reason and one reason alone- to benefit women’s wombs. It traps men in a pack-animal based system, where you have to be the biggest and baddest alpha out there or someone will knock you off your perch- and they inevitably will. Why, because under this paradigm, if you aren’t some perpetual superman, if you aren’t dominating, then someone will automatically be dominating you, at which point you are automatically assumed to be the submissive. You will not have one woman, let alone any woman and therefore you are nothing in society’s eyes (the truth is that you shouldn’t need any single one person or a sexual encounter with them to define your worth as a man).
It was the middle to upper class men, such as doctors and lawyers, adhering to this paradigm, acting as providers and protectors, who provided the platform of feminism to their wives. It was this paradigm of masculinity, which refused to see men who “failed to make the cut” as even being men, that is the basis of the “patriarchal theory” view of men. Considering that “patriarchal theory” is the basis of all feminist based policies, it is ultimately this view of masculinity which Oh and before someone tries to claim this is the “patriarchy hurts men too ” line, I’d point out that this line of reasoning actually debunks “patriarchal theory” as a zeitgeist based fallacy.
Yet despite all of what feminism is done, people double down on the model of masculinity which got us into this mess by outliving its necessity and in doing so, merely further entrench feminism and its effects – too plugged into the system, too ruled by a gender based paradigm built on the fear based model of “kill or be killed”, so repressed that they’re numb to the plight of men less fortunate than themselves, that they lash out like wounded animals, going into the “social cop” modus operandi that they’ve been conditioned into since a young age.
The fear seems to be that doing so would turn us all into a pack of perpetual victims – a psychological snare designed ultimately as a weapon of last resort, to defend against the denial of provision for female infantalisation. However nothing could be further from the truth.
What it produces are men without limitations – men who are without inhibiting fear. When you have a society which values all men enough for that radically different paradigm to be the social imperative, then feminism cannot survive. Under that paradigm, where women actually have to be accountable, feminism withers away in a very short space of time. Under that paradigm, “lowly” men are seen as tragic wastes of potential that must rehabilitated because their potential is worth realising, rather than as lame horses off to some version of the metaphorical glue factory (be it through family court slavery, false imprisonment, destitution or suicide through attrition, to bring up a few generalised examples).
One other thing to point out to those who are quoting scripture, what we are called to do is “walk humbly with God”, yet so many people here fail to grasp what that means. To be truly humble is to discard the ego. However as long as insecurities and fears exist within us, so too will our egos – the stronger the level of fears and insecurities, the stronger the level of ego. It is our egos which are what drive us to push ourselves away from God.
What changes that is when we are filled with enough love and accept that we deserving of love to the point where we can disregard our egos – accepting the paradox of our existence (crucial as God cared enough about us to make us from nothing; and yet in the grand scheme of the universe, completely insignificant) – then we gain humility. Accepting Christ is a choice – it requires accepting that we are deserving enough of God’s love to allow him to love us. That in turn requires accepting that we are worthy of being loved to begin with (even if it only through the grace of God).
People talk about God delighting in using the lowly to make a point, yet they either never consider why he chooses the lowly as opposed to the dominating of this world. The reason is because the lowly remind people that the trappings and illusions of the world are just that; that what matters comes from when you discard the material – right down to the prescribed roles which society is founded on. That is why Christ loves the poor so much and that is the lesson to be learned from his love of them.
The law isnt religion
The fact you guys dont understand this basic concept, proves you’re still too close to the paganism of Christianity today
Religion is basically the worship of culture, it has nothing to do with the Bible
Organised religion & the religion of christianity, are all forms of worshipping culture, which is why theyre so useless when it comes to combating feminism, liberalism etc
Christians today are too busy getting high off the worship of popular mainstream concepts, instead of ensuring their chruches remain patriarchial, masculine, male led & culture proof
Kick the women out of leadership roles & men who are followers, ie not capable of being leaders, will stop worshipping women
That is the basic definition of a mangina … a male with a warped sense of leadership
Kick women out of leadership positions, & manginas will stop drooling over women
Manginas should be lead by men
@hannah
Its great theres old-school christians out there
The fact is guys like M.Singer preach religion, instead of real patriarchial, masculine male led values
He preaches the politics & culture of religion, instead of real values patriarchial, masculine male led & honour & strength
Which is why he spews bible verses, as he doesnt understand the REAL values of christianity
Christians have to stop condemning people of sin, & start teaching they have the strength to resist sin
Using sin as a shaming language, is feminisation of christianity
Male led authoritarian christianity doesnt condemn sinners, it gives them the strength to stop sinning
Real Christianity is all about giving people the power to stop sinning
Men give people power & strength
Pingback: Links and Comments #10 | The Society of Phineas
@ mackPUA:
Christians have to stop condemning people of sin, & start teaching they have the strength to resist sin
Using sin as a shaming language, is feminisation of christianity
Male led authoritarian christianity doesnt condemn sinners, it gives them the strength to stop sinning
Thanks for your comment, would you mind expanding on the points above when you have the time? I’m very interested to know your thoughts. You don’t believe in God right? Yet I’ve noticed across the board you have some very incisive observations that I find myself agreeing with.
It’s always a little uncomfortable to hear the truth from an unlikely source! Thanks in advance 🙂
It hurts me when you talk like that.
Cane….it should.
Michael Singer, thanks for your encouraging comment to this Messianic Gentile woman 🙂
Pingback: The Meaning of the Recent MGTOW Dust-Up for the Manosphere At Large
Reblogged this on Kimi Ni Mune Kyun.
@Hannah
I’ll post something tomorrow, i thought this thread was dead, after AR trolled it to death lol
@Hannah
The church has a long history of feminisation
The charismatic movement obliterated traditionalism, instead of masculine forms of prayer & worship, they sing & dance which dramatically minimises & undermines concepts of reverance
Plus all the interpretations of the bible, are culturally interpreted & then feminised, emphasising inoffensiveness, instead of the truth
With the translation of the bible to english, alot of the harder truths & depth of the bible was taken out, according to the social engineering agenda of the aristocrats
The bible continues to be delineated & rationalised, to this day, in the name of making it easier to understand …
Spirituality & christianity are infinite sources of power
Men are supposed to use spirituality as forms of strength, adversity becomes meaningless when you have an infinite source of strength & fortitude
Solace & solitude & reverance are all foundations of masculinity, as only men have a reverance for life & the greater good
Worship & prayer today, instead of asking for strength, people ask for forgiveness, instead of asking for wisdom & the truth, they ask to be delivered from sin …
Grovelling, & on your knee’s calling your god, lord & master, are all forms of subserivance, how can men be warriors of the church if they’re subserviant & grovel, you dont gain strength by begging for it
You gain strength by taking it
Grovelling, & on your knee’s calling your god, lord & master, is also paganism
Self flaggelation & penance is romanism & catholicism, it has nothing to do with christianity
Catholicism is paganism …
Calling your god, lord & master is also a form of paganism
Sin has replaced the preaching & praying for authority & the seekers of truth
The trendy metro waxed ass-hole preacher, instead of the beard & authority of the wisened
Feminisation is paganism, christianity when romanicised, was taken over by the cult of the sun, also known as the cult of mithra
This was the same cult, which caused the destruction of rome
This is the same cult, funding & pushing feminism today
When man is on the cusp of freedom, they unleash the dogs of war …
Women …
Unfortunately men have been destroyed by stay at home mothers, leading to the manginas & white knights
It’s stayathome mothers, who created feminism, they churned out feminised, emasculated boys in the millions, while their dad got turned into a walking wallet & coal miner, instead of a father to his children
Which is why our society today is fucked …
PUA’s, gamers, MRA’s, MGTOW, we are the resistance … we are legion, men will always win, its what we do …
Thanks for your answer, I really appreciate it 🙂
Pingback: Main ideologies in the manosphere - The Spearhead
Just wanted to share this interesting article I found on male frenemies. The article discusses how this issue is partly attributed to feminism and it’s overall effects on men and society.
http://www.menslifetoday.com/uk/feature/relationships/male_frenemies/#axzz2X5Ht9Va3
Here’s quote from the article which I think sums up the story pretty well,
“Marc Rudov, the American self-described “No-Nonsense Man” and Fox News commentator, has a different take altogether. He sees the male frenemy phenomenon as a symptom of a societal trend in which men are acting more and more like women. “A lot of this behaviour is teenage girl behaviour,” Rudov says. “Today’s guys are more like girls. There’s a whole wave of feminisation of boys, and I think [frenemy behaviour] is the result of that.”
Read more: Conquer Your Male Frenemies | Men’s Life Today http://www.menslifetoday.com/uk/feature/relationships/male_frenemies/#ixzz2X5M5rk3H
Pingback: Easy Listening: The Full “Picking Up Girls Made Easy” Album
Pingback: Why I can't always be miserable all the time - A Geek in the Wilderness
Some MRAs are fine with both the MGTOW and the normative marriage ideas. The fact is that the State, the media and the education industry will do what they can to harm the natural family and also any individual male who refuses to be supervised by the authoritarian Nanny State. Every man for himself. And when possible the pairing of a man of good character and a woman of good character in a household raising children who will not be abused by big pharma and the social-engineering education industry is a beautiful, praiseworthy, civilized and necessary thing.
Pingback: Why women are attracted to evil and how to use this knowledge to improve your love life. | bodycrimes
Pingback: Atheist Adam Lee’s smear campaign to silence my discussion of Christian sexual morality. | Dalrock
Pingback: Der Kommissar’s Online | nightskyradio
Dalrock:
Congratulations are in order. This article is cited in the Wikipedia entry on “Manosphere”.
Pingback: Alpha Philosophy: You're You Because Of Your Past
Pingback: Zeitgeist Report 2018 | Σ Frame
Pingback: Why I can’t always be miserable all the time – A Geek in the Wilderness
Pingback: What is the blue pill? | Dalrock
Pingback: The Evolution of the Red Pill | Σ Frame