This blog has been from the beginning a male space. At the same time, I have welcomed female commenters from the beginning. There is an obvious contradiction here, and I have managed this to the best of my ability. However:
- We live in a world where male spaces are vanishingly rare. This means protecting the few we have is especially important.
- When women enter a male space, they inevitably change that space by their presence.
Cane Caldo has limited comments on his blog to male commenters (see also here and here), and Scott has defined a policy of generally separating the commenting of women and men on his blog. Both Cane and Scott make strong arguments for their changes, and after considering the issue I have decided to modify my own comment policy regarding women.
While this is a male space, one of my objectives is to help ease the suffering of both women and men by helping people make better choices. I also have found that while women always change a male space by entering it, there are some women who are able to greatly reduce their footprint in this respect. With this in mind, I’ve decided to continue to allow women to comment, but to have a bias towards removing women who tend to be more disruptive by their presence. This way the discussion isn’t repeatedly derailed by emotional reactions, endless rounds of reframing, etc. And of course, even if you aren’t able to comment you will still be able to read.
I would offer advice to women who wish to comment here on how to minimize the amount that they change the space by participating, but my observation is the women who know how to do this know it in their gut, and the women who struggle with this aren’t likely to either understand or follow the advice I would offer.
I’ll also note that this is just one small place on the internet. If you feel your voice isn’t being heard, I would encourage you to start your own blog for free.
Lastly, I’ll define some general rules for commenting on the blog which apply to men and women. The first three rules below have always been in place, and the fourth is new:
- Don’t violate copyright law. If there is a question, I’m inclined to err on the side of caution. A link and a paraphrase is ideal.
- Don’t advocate violence.
- Avoid changing the topic from the original post, especially early in the comment thread (the first few days or 100 comments after a post is published). After a few days and or 100 comments I’m fairly lenient here so long as the topic change isn’t egregious.
- Don’t brag about or advocate adultery.
In addition to the above, avoid the following topics unless I specifically make an exception in a post:
- Age of consent laws. This is a guaranteed thread derailer. It is ok to reference the existence of these laws provided it is on topic, but don’t do this in such a way that would invite a discussion on what should be the proper age of legal consent.
- Marital corporal punishment.
I’ll place a link to this post on the top of the blog and update the comment policy as required.
Pingback: New comment policy | Manosphere.com
The women who understand already know, as you say, Dal. Feminists can’t deal with different viewpoints. And throw in Christianity…….actually advocating Gods word and providing examples……you see, this culture has been ruined by feminism. We, the wretched survivors, are trying to encourage each other…..as we behold the day drawing near.
How do you know if a commenter is male or female?
Dalrock,
I only rarely visit your blog. But when I do I enjoy it.
Personally I don’t see any way a Manosphere blogger can keep the door open to women in comment sections and have healthy debate.
Women in the real world take for granted that their warped logic and argumentative gambits win.
When women are challenged on their flawed assumption that basic logic is mutable they reframe endlessly. They literally _can’t_ debate logically. The moment a woman is rhetorically pinned she will slither away in a tangential phrase full of trigger words. She will always opt for emotional rather than rational. And if by the rare alignment of female neurons you win an argument. A woman will merely say NAWALT and logoff.
Why bother? Women don’t learn this way. The only thing it does is offer a venue for the born again anti-feminists to have their femininity validated.
I will try to write this without sounding prideful.
I am humbled by the fact that something I wrote (with others working in the same direction) caused you to modify your thinking on this. It usually works in the other direction. You are the most influential Christian “red-pill” blogger.
I will be following closely to see how you moderate toward this line of thought.
How do you know if a commenter is male or female?
Sooner or later, usually sooner, it becomes obvious. Long term readers will notice that several of the rules Dalrock is articulating have been in effect for a while, years in some cases, he’s just restating them.
The major change appears to be in the area of female NAWALTing / reframing. Seems to me Dalrock has allowed more than one threadjacking over the years, and aside from the object lesson of “Yep, AWALT” not much insight is gained by letting women run away with their Imperative.
It could be that endless “my interpretation of the Bible dances on the head of a pin better than yours does” threads are not necessarily as useful as one might expect, too.
I’ve been reading this site for a good while now…..it’s not difficult to figure out who’s who. Feminists can’t keep their opinions to themselves. We don’t care……as Vox Day would have it. Essentially, this site has given me encouragement when I needed it. Frivorce ain’t pretty, but I survived. Red pill is so virulent opposed to the Feminist Imperative that there’s no common ground.
People reveal who they are to a discerning eye and ear. I’ve dealt with the public for 40 years over the phone. You learn to listen to what’s not being said, as well. When a feminist comes up in the comments, she can’t help but show what she is. Look at how she expresses herself……and, just sayin’, there can be some gender confusion as well. On a very serious side, anyone who’s for planned parenthood and infanticide…..well, there’s going to be some real red flags in the argument.
Donal Graeme is also experimenting with segregated posts. Of course, I am thrilled at the change in direction here, DG’s, and Scott’s.
Women are very often what Vox Day calls entryists. It’s difficult to peaceably dislodge them because we’re men, and as men we like to have women around and we like to have women celebrate us. At the same time: We don’t like to tell them off (for various reasons; most of which don’t reflect very well upon us) and when we try, then they do what Ang describes above.
Exactly so. It’s worse than that, too, because logging off doesn’t make the comments go away. In the flesh at least we can successfully ignore them. Their ramblings and rationalizations disappear on the breeze. But on the Internet they linger like discarded menstrual rags, and tempt other women with the idea that this is a good place throw their own bloody refuse. Don’t get me wrong: They need a place to do that, but I don’t think a man’s blog should be that tent.
Dal’s site is one of my top three reads, along with Rollo and the Chateau. I’ve never had a problem with the comments, though likely some have had a problem with mine. Peace.
I am absolutely amazed that it became necessary to have a rule that you couldn’t talk about marital corporal punishment. I wouldn’t have thought that this would pop up often enough to be enshrined in an actual rule.
Wait, did I violate the rules by talking about marital corporal punishment?
Women have plenty of “women only” spaces offline and online.
As a new father I found the articles and boards at Babycenter.com a helpful resource. When creating an account in order to participate in a discussion I was asked to select an avatar. I found there are no male avatars. Only female ones.
I contacted Babycenter support requesting a male avatar. I was told there are none. I could either use a female avatar or upload a photo.
Erm, yeah.
I wouldn’t have a problem with this except that if the roles were reversed we’d hear screeches about the fictional “patriarchy” and rampant sexism.
Women have their spaces. Men can have them too.
@Heresolong
I think only one or two commenters have brought this up, and I’ve removed the comments and asked them to not do so in the future.
In regards to #4 – advocating adultery: It is clearly not allowed on your blog comment’s section, but what if the user advocates it on their own site and posts links to their site in your comments? This is the case with Special Celebrity Guest Star Rollo, but instead of discouragement for this you have featured his words in your post headlines and he is worshiped and deified by the users. You are as always welcome to celebrate or discourage any behavior you want, but this is a contradiction between what you allow and what you say is not allowed. Did you turn over a new leaf in regards to all the encouragement of men to sin via hook-up culture communities?
Pingback: New comment policy | Reaction Times
Pingback: The Difference Between The Hypocrisy of Christian Men and Women | Artisanal Toad's Hall
^^^ Oh, hell. Here we go.
Oscar, lol that man…. Bob is roberta!
Donal Graeme is also experimenting with segregated posts. Of course, I am thrilled at the change in direction here, DG’s, and Scott’s.
I’m awaiting the rash of articles sure to appear across the feminist blogosphere over the next few weeks shrieking in indignation at the manosphere’s escalating attempts to “censor” or “repress” women’s opinions (has InsanityBytes22 launched opening salvo?). Of course it’s because we’ve always hated women and have decided that now is as good a time as any to drop any pretense of objectivity and engage in hate speech/crimes. After all, isn’t that what male-only spaces do, which is why the Feeeeeeeeeeelings Defense Association (deadlier by far than that “other” FDA) is working so hard to shut them down, or at least co-opt them with estrogen floods?
Dal, I must assume that I’m one of the commentators you’re referring to WRT corporal punishment (c.f. Rev. 3:19). Honestly, I didn’t know that was contrary to the rules of the blog and you’ve never communicated to me that I shouldn’t bring the topic up. You’ve put comments of mine in moderation and later deleted them, but you never told me why. I thought it had to do more with polygyny.
Interestingly, I’ve been working on an essay for the past week because I’ve been bothered by a bunch of the comments here and rather than post my thoughts here I wrote a post on my blog. Call me whatever you want, but it’s hypocrisy to hold the women to the Biblical standard as wives and not hold men to the Biblical standard as husbands.
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2015/10/26/the-difference-between-the-hypocrisy-of-christian-men-and-women/
Thank you for the kind words Scott. As I wrote the other day I’m very pleased to see you blogging again.
Bob,
I haven’t restricted comments on adultery in the past. As far as I recall there is only one commenter who does that, and I’ve grown exceedingly weary of it and others have mentioned the same. As far as other blogs, I’m not moderating them. As for Rollo in specific I haven’t seen the post(s) you are referring to, but I wouldn’t refer you to him for Christian instruction either way.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Dalrock,
Thank you for graciously permitting us to intrude. I hope never to mar this space, and I have learned much here. Blessings on you and yours,
Siobhan
I discovered this blog about 3 or 4 years ago when I was going through a crisis. The content here was of huge benefit. Now I’m doing well again. I continue to read here, but will miss the very comical discourse that females unwittingly and consistently provide. Hopefully Rollo won’t restrict female comments. It’s hilarious over there at times as well.
Additionally, thanx much Dalrock. I believe our Savior recognizes the help you provide many desperate Christian men.
My impression is that the main problems women are having with men these day come from two things: 1) being too emotional to accept unpleasant truths, both about men and about themselves, and 2) not understanding men, partly because of #1. So though the idea of “men’s space for men” and “women’s space for women” has some appeal, I think that practically speaking the main thing women need to do is visit men’s blogs. The women’s blogs just don’t really cut it, as far as I can see, because the bloggers themselves have both the problems noted. (It seems to me that men give better advice to both men and women.) Of course none of this relates to commenting. I just think it is, or would be, better for women not to think of men’s blog’s as “men’s space, for men only”. Just today I was thinking I should send my teenage daughter over to CH for an eye-opener … I thought better of it.
Dalrock, your blog has great value. You contend that women inevitably change a space when they enter it, although some are “able to greatly reduce their footprint in this respect.” No matter how minimal footprint, you clearly believe it still mars the space, and so I genuinely apologize for my intrusions over the years. I would not have commented or read if I had believed that you did not want women on your blog, and I will not be reading or commenting again. (You offer that it is possible to read without commenting, but as a point of principle I would not personally do that.) I know that this is no loss to you or your commenters, and I wish you the best.
Sounds pretty fair o me, Dalrock.
Mind you, any woman who enters this space with attitude is usually not shown any mercy at all by the more incisive of your readers. They usually can’t compete fairly, so they’ll run to the Headmaster sooner or later..
Dalrock, are you going to be instituting rigorous standards for sound doctrine in the comments section as well?
I ask this because of posters like Artisanal Toad who repeatedly peddle false doctrines, get shown exactly why they are false and then slither away for a few months only to come back and repeat their lies. He even linked to his latest post in this comments section where he repeats the same lies. He’s adept at working his lies into posts with the appearance of being on topic. This has to be addressed if you want your efforts to be as fruitful as possible.
AT has repeatedly been shown to be a liar, a heretic(claiming Deuteronomy was a “judicial ruling and not the command of God”) and by his own admission, an adulterer. He delights in laying up false, heavy burdens on Christian men with unfaithful wives. I could write more, but anyone who cares can read my posting history on my own blog and this one.
Women can’t be kept out of male spaces. Wherever men go, women inevitably follow. This is not unsurprising because women define themselves through the men in their lives. Even feminism is nothing more than a sick attempt of some women to be like men in the basest of ways. What a woman becomes in life is mostly a result of the influences of the men in her life. Like hypertension or other chronic illnesses, women can only be “managed”; they cannot be “cured”.
@ Mulier
Thank you for pointing out why this step is necessary in the first place. Women who are physically present in male spaces invariably DO change the dynamic. Online, it’s no different with the commenting.
@shammahworm says:
Dalrock, are you going to be instituting rigorous standards for sound doctrine in the comments section as well?
The rest of your post seems to have answered the question:
“…posters like Artisanal Toad who repeatedly peddle false doctrines, get shown exactly why they are false and then slither away for a few months…”
“…AT has repeatedly been shown to be a liar, a heretic…”
Soooo, what exactly would you like Dalrock to do, again?
Back in the 1980s, when I was young and blue pill, I welcomed women into formerly men’s spaces (universities and workplaces), because I thought it created opportunities to meet and date pretty woman. I hated the bar scene.
I think many men welcome women into their spaces, because they think it expands their mating opportunities. A lot of men do meet their future wives at universities and workplaces.
Only when I got older and red pill did I realize the societal costs of having women everywhere. They take over and change the rules. They regulate speech and behavior. Institutions regulate or even criminalize speech and behavior that make women uncomfortable. Men are feminized into manginas.
I wouldn’t have a problem with this except that if the roles were reversed we’d hear screeches about the fictional “patriarchy” and rampant sexism.
Now that the roles were not reversed, did you make noise to register your dissatisfaction with babycenter.org? If you did not, then don’t be surprised that things don’t change. The feminists, like the so-called Jehovah’s witnesses, have some horrible doctrines, but they are very good at diseminating them. They have the methods, though not the message. We can learn a thing or two from these people by not allowing them to get away with their idiocy.
It is almost guaranteed: if only a handful of men were to make noise about sexism on babycenter.org, things will quickly begin to change for the better.
another, very specific problem, is when a husband and wife are both commenting at the same site.
IF the husband takes one side of a position
AND i’m on the other side of the position
AND his wife starts debating me while he’s not around ( away at work or whatever )
…
THEN it is Biblically *improper* for me to try to change her mind.
why?
because IF i bring her around to my way of thinking BUT i have not convinced him … i have tempted the wife into rebellion against her husband. i’m sure you see the problem here.
the husband is the head of the house and the family.
trying to convince the wife to stand against the husband, ESPECIALLY in public, is going to be very corrosive to their marriage relationship.
I wouldn’t ban anybody from a site
(this just gives leftists extra ammunition),
especially not feminists.
I would thank them.
Profusely.
“Thank you for your comment(s) which goes to prove
the very necessity for the raison d’être of this blog”
(Related: How to Respond If Someone Calls You
a Racist [or a Sexist] or Says “You Are Full of Shit”)
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-to-respond-if-someone-calls-you.html
Meh, I never notice this stuff. Dalrock hasn’t a formal reply button with directly below a comment, so I don’t see how discussions and give/take can even take place here. When I have a comment, I have my say, I rarely get a reply anyway, so I must not ruffle too many feathers. So, no adultery, no marital corporal, women shut up with the irrelevent. Sounds like savory policy to me and easily accomplished.
I don’t think Dalrock is banning women. Dalrock is banning behavior fall back on when reality, logic and scripture collide with the feminine imperative. By default reasonable women don’t comment or show that behavior because the men commenting here refuse to accommodate women. They don’t change what is said about reality, logic and scripture until she feels comfortable. It is a judgment call Dalrock makes based on behavior not sex. Even Mulier above knows it, though one wouldn’t think so reading her comment.
@Mulier
Sounds like the right call. I wish you the best as well.
What Sioban said: October 25, 2015 at 9:39 pm
Thank you for graciously permitting us to intrude. I hope never to mar this space, and I have learned much here. Blessings on you and yours.
My sentiments exactly.
Lin
@shammahworm
No, but as you note this is a place of vigorous debate, and challenging bad doctrine is part of what we do. I make it a point to limit my participation in the comboxes, as I have found that I have time to blog or time to comment on my own blog, but not time for both. Also, I already have a platform (posts), so I try to leave the comments mostly for others. But with that said, when bad ideas are put forward they tend to be vigorously challenged if not by me then by others.
As a woman who has been reading and sporadically commenting in the sphere for 8 yrs. I agree with greyghost and applaud Dalrock’s action. A few years ago Rollo did a piece about Red Pill women and he was mostly right we do change the discussion and don’t need to invade men’s spaces. I also found over the years I stopped reading the comments not only when women emotionally injected themselves, but also when inflammatory, angry blanket statements occurred by either gender. It’s unproductive and nothing is learned.
Ladies, I know it’s hard but perhaps limiting your input to questions is great place to start.
Dalrock, I have often wished you had a separate place on your blog to respond to women and give advice, I know I would be learning so much more if there was a place where I know I was free to ask questions and find answers.
@Shammah wormtongue
I’m not a liar or an adulterer. I’m told I’m a heretic by the RCC, but that’s OK because all that means is I don’t agree with their doctrine. You’ve accused me, so feel free to bring your evidence forward, but rather than clog up Dalrock’s blog with your emotional vomitus, make your accusations on mine.
That will be difficult for you because you have never demonstrated my exegesis of Scripture is wrong, rather, you point and screech with nothing of substance. As I recall, your final rejoinder was “Jesus said it! Right there, He said it!” Jesus also told the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords. We don’t use swords these days, we use guns. Jesus said it, so have you got your guns and would you even know what to do with them? After all, Jesus said it! In fact, Jesus said some men are born eunuchs, some men are made eunuchs and some men make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Worm, have you castrated yourself for the kingdom of heaven yet? If not, why? After all, Jesus said it!
Your inability to parse scripture or accomplish basic Biblical exegesis, combined with your propensity toward eisegesis makes your reading of the Bible a problem. In fact, your ignorance of basic definitions and your inability to read for comprehension makes any assertion you make about the Bible suspect at best. After arguing with you in the past I find you to be ignorant, self-centered, arrogant and completely incapable of recognizing the truth even if it hits you in the face. In short, you are unteachable.
You’re a feminized SJW gamma with an agenda, trying to twist Scripture to meet your preconceived ideas of how things are supposed to be and you argue like a silly woman. Anyone with half a brain realizes that your idea of “sound doctrine” is whatever meets your approval regardless of what the Bible has to say. The idea that iron sharpens iron is only applicable when men are arguing a point and recognize the possibility they could be wrong. Real men are teachable, you’re not. When iron sharpens iron sparks are thrown and that upsets women and gamma males like you. That’s why you appeal to Dalrock as an authority figure to enforce your idea of “sound doctrine.”
In fact, only a feminized gamma could come up with something like your screen name. You take the name of one of David’s 3 mighty men and add the word “worm” to it. You defame the name of a mighty man with the insane idea that you’re being humble in doing so. Take that garbage to a woman’s group, that’s where you’ll fit in.
“I think only one or two commenters have brought this up, and I’ve removed the comments and asked them to not do so in the future.”
Well that’s idiotic but alright.
Ang Aamer @ October 25, 2015 at 6:23 pm:
“The moment a woman is rhetorically pinned she will slither away in a tangential phrase full of trigger words.”
I’ve also begun wondering if some female trolls intentionally don’t “get it” in order to keep attracting attention. This makes no sense to me, that someone would actively court frustration and disrespect from total strangers, but a pattern has definitely emerged. (I’m probably late to this party.)
One part of me really likes our predecessors’ idea of separate spheres. Another part of me wonders if that’s how the Venusian arts were lost. A third part wonders if that gap is what culture is supposed to bridge in a healthy society.
…
Practicallyperfect @ 9:29 am:
“Dalrock, I have often wished you had a separate place on your blog to respond to women and give advice, I know I would be learning so much more if there was a place where I know I was free to ask questions and find answers.”
You could start a blog for the specific purpose of asking men questions. I think it would be within the limits of this new policy if you posted a request on this blog’s topics for a discussion on your own.
There are reasons to have your own blog besides putting up ground-breakingly awesome exposes of Churchian malfeasance.
I read the original post a couple days ago, and I think a lot of people are continuing to overreact. The women who claim to be leaving are exactly the same women who I’ve never noticed behaving badly here. The dudes (Artisinal Toad, relax man) who are pitching a fit are guys who try to follow the letter and the spirit of the rules — even going so far as to not react when I troll them.
Of course, those ho’s (both male and female) who have historically not given a shit about the rules aren’t here discussing this new addendum. I just read the above as fair warning (to them) that they’re going to start disappearing soon. I doubt anyone cares that they’ll be gone, as they never added much to the discussion anyway, outside of a bit of cheap fringe entertainment.
Regards,
Boxer
GunnerQ
Can you imagine a blog where women could ask questions. First time the slightest requirement goes up for a woman to do anything she would argue with God’s word and the next 2 weeks would be this one woman with a few here and there arguing for God’s word until the subject at best was dropped or completely lost or at worst as the current church as done changed God’s word to please the woman into some sort of agreement.
For me the best response is to leave the woman to perish in darkness with a smile as a defeat of rebellion. Bringing pride and status to the non rebelling women. Only love the worthy leave never play the role of capt. save-a -hoe. Always give reassurance and affirmation to the godly women not all women.
@shammahworm, is awfully transparent, when you realize what her goal is.
She wants to force Dalrock to rescind his female comment policy, by taking it to extremes.
“If you are going to limit comments by one group (women), then you MUST limit comments by every other potentially objectionable poster, or not limit comments at all. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.”
All posted under the guise of a love-filled concern troll.
If Dalrock continues to respond to their concern-trolling with explanations and justifications, the next shoe will eventually drop: “you need to quit being a hypocrite and rescind you female posting policy” as they state their true goal.
Dalrock clearly stated his reasoning in the original post. If someone disagrees with it, they can go someplace else.
@ Dalrock.
No, but as you note this is a place of vigorous debate, and challenging bad doctrine is part of what we do.
It seems that you provide a lot of latitude in this regard which I appreciate. I like your open debate approach as I think it provides the best means of negating and exposing bad teaching/understanding (if squabbling can be avoided).
Ahhh, Churchian malfeasance, I have to laugh as I am the wife of a mainline denomenational minister who is purple pill at best; but he is ever so slowly getting it. I have thought of a blog but that is not what God is calling me to and I have that female failing of being psychologically soft as Vox put it at Alpha Game. However I am working up the nerve to request Dalrock address a topic or two.
STFU
@GunnerQ
As you, can see by the response above, which is much more civil then my first response here 8yrs ago, I am very hesitant to ask anything. As for a blog, that is not what God is calling me to. Instead I serve God by serving my husband a purple pill mainline denominational minister who is slowly coming around. Keep us in your prayers.
As a Christian reading this blog, it pains me when I read cursing (and I have considered refraining from reading here). I don’t think cursing should be allowed on a Christian blog.
Would it be possible to have two sets of comment streams, one mixed sex and the other exclusively male on each post? I’m not sure how much customization wordpress offers, although I’ve had good luck with similar things on other platforms. I have seen quite a lot of posts riffing off of comments women have left (for good or ill), so it would seem prudent to allow some amount of dialog.
“women have left (for good or ill), so it would seem prudent to allow some…”
Women not leaving comments is entirely *Good* for the men who read here. “Women who have left (for good or ill)”? No, It’s irrelevant and no worries, women leaving won’t be missed.
@Shammahworm
>I ask this because of posters like Artisanal Toad who repeatedly peddle false doctrines, get shown exactly why they are false and then slither away for a few months only to come back and repeat their lies.
I’m late to the party, but I’ll add my thoughts.
I appreciate Dalrock’s light touch. Case in point, I have found many of AT’s posts to show wisdom. Can’t say I have read every post he wrote; e.g. your claim that he thinks Deuteronomy is not from God is news to me.
You might want to consider that logical debate needs exactly that — logical debate. If you decide what is “right”, and forbid any contrary views, you will never learn or have your elementary thoughts improved.
Dave (and others) and I have got at each other a few times, but I would not publicly label them as heretics.
And I also appreciate Dalrock’s service to God in this blog. We all have different gifts… Some prophesy, some teach, some serve… Rom 12:3-8. I’ll add that not all teaching/preaching is done orally. Preaching through written messages is a worthy pursuit.
Plus I like the frequent vigorous debates that follow 🙂 I’m a man though, so what did you expect? 🙂
https://shammahworm.wordpress.com
Read the comments section of my post titled “Yes, There is Biblical Divorce and Remarriage” and also my year-old posts on here.
My words are clear there. I’m neither an SJW nor a troll. Dalrock knows this from my own blog and past comments on here. It’s probably why he bothered to respond to me at all. Thank you for responding Dalrock and I will continue to post when AT parrots the LIE that there is no divorce in cases of sexual immorality(Deut 24, Matt. 5, Matt. 19).
Make sure you read the comments section of both my blog and the old posts on here to see AT’s unique mixture of blindness, lies and deceit. I PROVIDE SCRIPTURE to back up the FACT that a man has the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality. It was only after repeated posts posts and repeatedly restating the same thing over and over again that it becomes clear AT is a liar with no desire for sound doctrine. Heretic isn’t a word I just throw around, but AT earned it and I stand by it. Biblical divorce and remarriage is inseparable from the purpose of Dalrock’s blog. I won’t be silent when liars peddle false doctrines.
@new anon
I’m going to be kind and assume you didn’t read my blog or my comments on here. Because if you did, you’d realize I’m neither a woman nor an SJW.
@Anchorman
I won’t “STFU” when a liar posts false doctrines for months and new posting rules could conceivably allow him to continue posting lies and inhibit my ability to respond.
@Dale
Read the comments section to my blog in the post titled “Yes, There is Biblical Divorce and Remarriage.” Also there are posts on this blog between AT and myself which are over a year old. He repeats his lies after having been corrected(with proper citations of scripture of course) and then acts as though they were never addressed.
I would suppose that most commenters on most blogs are male.
Equalists fail to see any difference between men and women, yet, so often, women – purportedly christian women – hijack threads and make the thread all about themselves. Curious is it not that on an avowedly Christian Blog like this, the more hell-bound and skeptical (myself and Boxer) do not cause thread-hi-jacking ripples.
shammahworm
I think you are playing dumb with the policy Dalrock posted. That is a female or defective man thing to do. (children also do that sort of thing)
In addition to my comments above, I am concerned that people (male or female) interested in reading about the subject may be turned off in the future by feminist/leftist friends (male or female) who will wail, “Don’t go there, they are close-minded (like all conservative sexist pigs!!) and don’t allow for comments from females!!”
That’s why I am against all bans, and in favor
with letting people express their (lack of) views,
along with a comeback line to the offending people (see above)
“Thank you for your comment(s) which goes to prove
the very necessity for the raison d’être of this blog”
@greyghost
I’m not playing dumb. #3 of the general rules could very easily effect me and my responses to false doctrines stated in the comments section. Most of the large spats on here start from remarks people make when people “respond” to whatever Dalrock posts. Dalrock’s new rules imply more moderation and that means #3 could start being enforced.
Dal
“If you are going to limit comments by one group (women), then you MUST limit comments by every other potentially objectionable poster, or not limit comments at all. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.”
Dalrock MUST not do anything at all. Who are you to impose rules and obligations on the host?
What an emotional, whiny statement…..today’s “chuckle,” thanks for that.
You can voice your opinion, and then a) accept it, or b) leave. The concerntrolling is continually amusing, I’ll say that.
Shamma,
Grow up. “I might step on the forbidden line” is not a valid reason to gripe. This is Dalrock’s place. Focus on your own if you don’t like it.
We don’t have to respond to everything. No one is God’s policeman and must right all wrongs. Plenty of us speak up to the idiocy some post, including ourselves. You can do that occasionally, but it is far from the required need you claim.
AT, the post you linked very early in this thread is full of bunk. Going for lots of wives is not good, no matter how you wrap it. It would have far more social implications than you think. Deal with the root of the problem, instead of waving it away by allowing a man to have his own harem. You fail to realize that would continue to reinforce the situation where many men have absolutely no chance at a wife and thus have every incentive to undermine civilization.
Note the “success” of polygamous civilizations and the flaws in your argument become apparent. It also goes against the way God made it from the beginning. You can never address that since you must ignore it to get your fantasy land.
@ISA
I don’t know how to do that in wordpress, and more importantly I would then need to moderate the conversation. Someone else could start their own blog with the express purpose of hosting comments on men’s sphere blog posts. Setting up the blog would be free, and it would take minimal effort to create stub posts referencing other blogs. But again, someone would have to moderate it, and they would still need to keep in mind the issues that Cane and Scott referenced.
Part of the problem is that men’s style of discussion rarely works for women, especially if we are talking about a more heated disagreement. As an example, in my most recent post my argument is that “abuse” is being used as a catch all term with the express purpose of ensuring that men don’t have a position of leadership in marriage. The feminists at Duluth are very out in the open about this, and I quoted them saying exactly that. Along comes a woman with a very standard tactic, playing (or not playing) dumb and asking (paraphrase) “So what you are saying is that you think headship is all about power and control”. It is an asinine question, calculated to simultaneously invoke emotion and avoid any real head on discussion. Once you burn through the initial emotional reframe, an endless stream will follow. I’ve been blogging for five years, and the pattern is bulletproof. I think from reading your past comments that you will understand this. It is a tremendous waste of time but an effective tactic for those who wish to shut the discussion off. And it doesn’t really matter if the person doing it just doesn’t know how to logically argue or is doing it on purpose. The results are the same, and there would be no way to really know short of an admission. There are some men who argue this way, but they are the exception and if they make it a pattern I’ll toss them out as well for the same reason. This kind of argument is no more rational than “shut up” (and has the same intent), which is why shut up is such an appropriate response to it.
One of the points that Cane made in a post I linked to above was that some women might decide to circumvent his rule by adopting a masculine handle and arguing like men. He pointed out that this wasn’t a problem, because the disruption would then be gone. The woman couldn’t change the dynamics by causing some men to white knight (and others to respond to the white knighting), nor by adopting an irrational debate tactic. I’m not asking that women pretend to be men to comment, but I am insisting that they be responsible for taking care not to disrupt the discussion.
«a very standard tactic, playing (or not playing) dumb and asking (paraphrase) “So what you are saying is that you think headship is all about power and control”. It is an asinine question, calculated to simultaneously invoke emotion and avoid any real head on discussion. … the pattern is bulletproof.»
This is where I would say something to the effect of
“Thank you so much for showing the left’s tactic of… invoking
emotion while avoiding any real head on discussion” 🙂
After all, isn’t (a big) part of what we are trying to do educating people (males or females, people on the left or people on the right) to the type of games that leftists play (consciously or otherwise)?
In addition to my comments above, I am concerned that people (male or female) interested in reading about the subject may be turned off in the future by feminist/leftist friends (male or female) who will wail, “Don’t go there, they are close-minded (like all conservative sexist pigs!!) and don’t allow for comments from females!!”
Not true! Darlock don’t want woman ungod and ungodly hiss fits. He want productive conversation for men by men . If woman can’t participate respectful & logically they should be here. Not a big deal. Stop acting like darlock is banging woman he is not!
some women might decide to circumvent his rule by adopting a masculine handle and arguing like men.
This will not succeed in the long run, for: a) as you say, if they argue as men do the reframing/mound building/distraction element is gone, or b) they cannot keep up the pretense for long, their hamster betrays them, and they are removed.
Win-win.
It would be more interesting if women who run rational sites would prohibit men from commenting there. I find pedastalizing men far more distracting than obfuscating women. I am also curious to know how severe the dropoff in comments would be,in quantity as well as in quality.
I suspect if female bloggers banned men from commenting, then everyone would rapidly lose interest as the whole thing degenerated from lack of substance into either one huge cat fight or a big mutual like-fest after the manner of facebook. It’s well-stomped ground by now, but check out Samantha Brick’s Daily Mail article about her all-female company intended to create corporate bliss.
@Asterisk
There is value to having the opportunity to point it out. I have used this in several posts (eg here) and referenced it in other comment sections. There is also the advantage of treating it like batting practice. The problem is one of diminishing returns compared with constant (if not increasing) distraction.
Here is the article on the all female company
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
This is always good for us Here Dalrock and has helped me get better at recognizing and dealing with these issues. Overall the blog is good training for speaking to my own daughters as they get older and start to show interest in dating .
Greyghost,
Will/would you encourage them to be a surrogate for another man? What will/would you tell them to expect out of such an arrangement?
(I am interested in the reply and not just arguing.)
@Dalrock
Thank you for your response. I do understand what you are saying, especially as regards arguing. The lack of a proper grammar school education has been quite sorely felt in the west as logic and rhetoric are barely taught, except at the few remaining Latin schools. The ever fluctuation hormones of per-menopausal women also cause reacting unemotionally and logically much more difficult, nigh impossible, without proper education and training.
Also, I do not want you to work more than absolutely necessary. I read some of the comments and was trying to think of an easy way to separate out the commentators who want no female contact while still remaining somewhat open as you described in your post. The function of this blog is dialog and education, but your vocation as a husband and father is the most important. Expecting you to police more than you already do would be an unreasonable imposition on your time.
@greyghost and Caspar Reyes
That article sounds entirely accurate. I once got reamed at the dinner table by my sister for saying I dislike working with women. She of course has destroyed any women that has come close to working with her or under her (project manager for new development at the top tech company in the world) so it was quite odd. My entire nuclear family and in-laws work in male dominated fields (construction, engineering, programming etc.) so female cattiness grates more than it ought, as we argue, out loud, using scientific articles, math, etc.
The problem with women male dominated fields is figuring out if the female refugees are actually refugees or there to “break the glass ceiling” or some other asinine thing. The glass ceiling breakers make life hell and are usually the cause for new dress codes and stringent sexual harassment training. They are the same people doing the silly arguing here, except with the added joy of having to interact in person.
Two thumbs up on the adultery rule. Sickens me when these pissants pretend that taking another man’s woman is “cool”.
Dear DeNihilist:
I disagree.
It’s always been one of my unspeakable delights to point out the facts in such a matter, to the braggart himself, and all who may have the false idea that boffing a married woman is the height of mastery of “the game’.
The pretend playas who knowingly seek out married women to bed are, in fact, closet homosexuals. The thrill in the cuckold scenario — at least for the “bull” — is in being in close proximity to the husband’s penis, semen, etc. Think about this, and it becomes obvious. Would you want to kiss the lips of a woman who just sucked her husband off, or get down and dirty with the pussy where his dick had been just a short time before? I didn’t think so. You’re not gay. For these guys who come here and boast about this shite (and I know a couple of you are still reading here, lol) it is an ecstatic moment to do so.
These idiots are doubly pathetic, in that unlike a regular fag, they don’t even have the courage to quit deluding themselves and seek out other men openly and with some degree of honor. They have to sneak around, and lick up the remains after the fact, in a pretend heterosexual pairing. It’s quite possible most of them couldn’t even perform with a normal woman, without this bizarre fetish playing a significant part in their participation.
In short: This is a terrible rule that will cut down on a great deal of my fun. But, what can we do? Rules are rules, and the man who pays the bills make them. This is the last time I’ll be able to point out the obvious for the peanut gallery, and so the winds blow.
Regards,
Boxer
@Isa
Yes, exactly. Truth be told your description is already decades old. The idea of grammar itself has been wiped out where it could not be supplanted. It has happened all over and in a legion of ways. Participation awards, for example, scrub out the low-but-important grammar of winning, losing, and therefore basic order.
I am assuming that I (who does not care for female commenters in the Men’s Sphere) am one of those you had in mind. For myself, I have all the female contact I want and need in my house, at my job, and in the wider world. If anyone needs more contact with women I suggest stepping away from the computer. There are tons of them out there, and you can watch what they think all day long. Women aren’t in hiding, and while they are very often hiding particular things from particular people, they are almost never any good at hiding themselves in general. They really don’t want to. That’s part of the problem.
The truth is (and women hate to hear it) men seeking to learn about women would do better to listen to other men and watch women. There is little value in listening to what a woman thinks about herself or other women unless you have already learnt about the woman from watching her in real life. On the Internet, that is impossible.
>The pretend playas who knowingly seek out married women to bed are, in fact, closet homosexuals. The thrill in the cuckold scenario — at least for the “bull” — is in being in close proximity to the husband’s penis, semen, etc. Think about this, and it becomes obvious. Would you want to kiss the lips of a woman who just sucked her husband off, or get down and dirty with the pussy where his dick had been just a short time before?
Pretty sure it’s the other way around, bro. The bull fucks the wife, then the cuckold gets off on the leavings of it. The thrill for the bull would be in the humiliation and degradation of the cuckold.
Have to agree with nick012000 here (over Boxer): as I understand it the Cuck is often deprived of sexual intimacy for weeks at a time – and is in any event wearing his cage – and only allowed access to the Wife (who wants to be taken back, told she is loved, that she is beautiful and that she is not a slut) after sexual intercourse with the Bull; but first must indulge in a clean-up operation whilst being told in graphic detail exactly what the Bull, who is allowed to do things forbidden to the Cuck, did with the Wife.
I only know this, and for no other reason, from what I have read on the Internet.
@Boxer
Or, stated differently, going after married women is playing the ‘Game’ in the easy mode. Wives withholding sex from their husbands are already halfway there where the playa wants them. No need to run the ‘husband destroyer’ routine.
Dear Opus:
You’re talking about the theatrical fetish, as it appears in online erotica. I’m talking about the homo-playa archetype that appears on Dalrock, Roosh V Forums, and elsewhere in our sphere. I used the terms “cuck” and “bull” in a general way to analogize the character here, and the other subjects of his usual narrative. I think these two scenarios are related, in the same way that one of Grimm’s fairy tales is related to the patterns of everyday life, but in the details they bear little resemblance to each other.
Use the search feature and find a few of these self-aggrandizing stories, right here on this blog. The arc follows a general pattern:
1. I noticed a married couple where the wife was disrespecting the husband.
2. I got next to the wife alone in an elevator, checkout line, taxicab, etc.
3. I got uninspired 2-minute sex from the wife, usually in this same semi-public place.
4. I saw the wife later back with her husband. She gave me a wink and a smile with him unawares.
5. I’m not actually a huge faggot.
What you will never read in these stories are long explanations about how the wife had not had sex with the husband for years, or disclaimers that the husband has been away for a month. The husband always features prominently. In short, the things that would turn a normal man off are featured as part of the erotic thrill of these homoerotic tales.
Best,
Boxer
BradA
No I wouldn’t tell them to be a surrogate for another man. In Fact I would encourage them to marry young and be good wives to their husbands.
I’m a mechanic/technician troubleshooter and repairman. One of the things I have is remembering the little things along the way. It is a big help when troubleshooting. If the light didn’t come on an engineer will check the circuit breaker and then test to make sure the switch works under load. I’ll change the light bulb first. One of the little things we forget about is the 80/20 thing. thee is a lot there with that 80 and even some of the 20. Nothing is absolute. An avionics component doesn’t work, it won’t pass start up test. switch it out with another aircraft it passes test for both aircraft and goes on a mission and comeback with no problems and works fine. Another case of the FM’s (fuckin magic) Common sense and masculine logic goes a long way here, things just work that way sometimes. My daughters are human daughters they have all of things we know of women. I know with sadness that good behavior is good behavior regardless of the drive behind it. One of the greatest gifts God has given me is that these females actually respect and value what I say to them. Very rare for a beta male today to see that from females. I can squander that by assuming they are princess or use that as a reminder to tell them the truth.
Getting back to good behavior. My wife is a school teaching and she has a kid that is smart enough to do well but is a social asshole in the class room.(this is normal I have spent many hours coaching my wife on leadership and human nature) The boy is living with grandma )which is basically code for piece of shit) and I made the comment that mom is a crackhead. My wife said yes and I compared her the a character from the movie we all saw “South Paw’ and burst laughing as I did in the movie theater. The oldest daughter said it was sad I disagreed of course. The reason for my disagreement is that my daughter needs to know it is in her best selfish interest not to be that crack bitch. Females will always go to a strength. It can be a tug or a christian man not afraid to kill It is very important that young women know and feel that loving men that take care of their families are fully capable of leaving the unworthy die suffer from their actions. To carry it on a good father speaks the truth to his wife and children and lives by his example.
What feminism has done is at gunpoint force men at gun point to “love’ the unworthy and that is why I have a different conversation with my son. It is the truth so all are welcome to hear all conversations. The words spoken to my son are a good reminder for my daughters on there behavior and how men view them. It is a subtle reminder to bring more to the table than a stink hole to be loved by a strong beta man. the thug and player only require a stink hole. Another thing feminism tries to do is make thugs and players loving. (hooking up smart come to mind)
This is really long and need to cut off for now. keep in mind what I said here can be easily picked apart with hair splitting logic and bible verses but so be it I’m their father and husband. I would love to sit down and talk with sometime ,I have some ideas on what may have happened with your foster kids.
@Boxer
That is rather different. All I can say (from personal experience) is that I have had a few married women make passes at me and it made me feel uncomfortable but not because I was feeling exceptionally faggy, though I can see that in going with a married woman (and hearing what she says) it does rather become like a threesome where the other male is ghosting. A friend of mine told me that he once (at his male friend’s encouragement) indulged in an MMF threesome; I always thought the idea of two guys getting their erect dicks out at the same time rather Homo-erotic. Another aquiantance of mine told me of two German guys he knew who always shared their women; again I suspect shades of Homo-philia.
You answered the question greyghost. It doesn’t seem completely consistent to me, but you have answered what I asked.
My own experience makes me think you may (ironically) be a bit optimistic in your expectations of your daughters, but my experienced by the fact my daughters were really someone else’s daughters.
And it would lead to asking why to not encourage your sons to seek out a wife who has gotten the advice you are giving your daughters?
BradA
As far as the daughters go It is a crap shoot in this world. Gotta keep working and there is always death. No training works if they think you will save them. let the female nature work for you. If she becomes unworthy you stop loving on them. The responsible thing is to do all to teach them how to be worthy. Faith and prayers carry the rest.
For a son first thing first he must know the nature of women and how to see it for what it is. when a young man can see her as she is he can love her when she is worthy. PUA and players promoters of MGTOW marry. Roosh just did a post on the type of woman he desires. What I try to instill in my daughters if found in a woman my son meets years from now can only be seen by a man with his eyes open. . women are not all pure and good even my lovely perfect little princesses that are my daughters.
This is tough seeing these articles and knowing I started this family thing in the dark as a blue pill man. But hey I guess it is the curse of the sweat of his brow thing. maybe some of that FM I spoke about earlier will find it’s way into the lives of my family.
Opus
I don’t see myself being erect and sexually aroused with another man present. I will never be able to enjoy a swingers party.
“Women in the real world take for granted that their warped logic and argumentative gambits win.
When women are challenged on their flawed assumption that basic logic is mutable they reframe endlessly. They literally _can’t_ debate logically. The moment a woman is rhetorically pinned she will slither away in a tangential phrase full of trigger words. She will always opt for emotional rather than rational. And if by the rare alignment of female neurons you win an argument. A woman will merely say NAWALT and logoff.”
this comment by ang aamer reminds me of the famous comment by gregg on rollo’s blog:
“One of the signs that a man is still plugged balls deep in the matrix is his effort to EXPLAIN anything to women. Women are NOT our equals. They are not receptive to logic, ideas, words. They are receptive to matter – our bodies, our dicks, status and power, dominance, strength, aggresivity, while these things trogger automatic programs in them – acquisitive mode, ‘love’, anger, frustration, FEAR, etc. If you want to actually communicate with women, you have to communicate with their CORE.”
Pingback: Women are like hypertension | Rivelino's Diary
@Bob, please C&P any instance where I have ever ‘advocated’ for adultery on The Rational Male. You wont because I never have.
A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of Rational Male would be better served if I banned certain commenters. I’ve mentioned on several posts and threads as to why I won’t ever do that (with the exception of blatant spamming), but in a nutshell it’s my fundamental belief that the validity of any premise or idea should be able to withstand public debate. People who aren’t confident of the strength of their assertions or ideas, or are more concerned with profiting from the branding of those weak assertions than they are in truth, are the first to cry about the harshness of their critics and kill all dissent as well as all discourse about those assertions.
That’s the primary reason I’ve never moderated; if people think I’m full of shit I’m all ears – I’m not so arrogant as to think I’ve thought of every angle about any idea I express here or on any other forum. However, the second reason I don’t censor, ban users or delete comments is that I believe it’s useful to have critics (usually women or fem-men) provide the gallery with examples of exactly the mentality or dynamic I’m describing in an essay. With a fair amount of predictability, a blue pill male or an upset woman will just as often prove my point for me and serve as a model for what I’ve described.
I never intentionally try to make rubes out of the critics I know will chime in about something, but I will sometimes leave out certain considerations I may have already thought about something, knowing it will get picked up on by a critic. I do this on occasion because I know that the “ah hah! I got him, he forgot about X,Y, Z” moment serves as a better teaching tool and confirms for me that a critic does in fact comprehend what I’m going on about.
I allow women to participate in the commentary not because I would try to convince them of my point or with any expectations of changing their minds about anything, but rather because they provide the most common examples of a point I’m making or because their counterarguments represent the most common I expect from women.
I’m not sure I’d define TRM as an exclusively Male Space per se. It’s always been an open forum and I’ve never been opposed to women posting there.
I allow for it because to test an idea’s strengths demands an open discourse. The price of that discourse is suffering the occasional idiots and ideologues, but I think it’s worth it because it makes for a better consideration of those ideas.
That said TRM is a very hot kitchen and many women’s feminine-primary expectations of being coddled and modulated for by men get stepped on. Most simply aren’t prepared for the unvarnished truths I present and get upset that my male commenters wont honor their entitled sensibilities by default.
In that respect TRM is a Male Space and one that will always be a crucible for ideas that makes no compensations for the wants or preconceptions of women. Sites like MMSL, Mark Manson and Evan Mark Katz are glaring examples of what happens when men self-modulate to accommodate women’s feelings. Those male spaces become assimilated by the Feminine Imperative and their financial wellbeing then dictates that pandering to it supersedes harsh, evident truths.
Rollo
It is something that when you don’t accommodate women leave on their own. people say you ban women they just don’t comment when men act like men.
@greyghost
That rather kills your burgeoning career as a male porn star, I would say.
This seems very fair. You are a blogging Solomon.
a safe zone for us!!…no microaggressions allowed
Pingback: Facebook conversations I have actually had | Morally Contextualized Romance