Those of you familiar with my blog and my comments on other blogs know that I have said that arguments between feminist women and ”anti-feminist” women are really just arguments about how to best extract money and other resources from men. Read or listen to an argument between feminist and “anti-feminist” women. The subjects they will argue about will have little to do with anything that is happening to men. Abortion will be top subject as well other subjects are irrelevant to what is happening to men such as arguments about wearing skirts vs. pants, debates about premarital sex, or quiverfull drivel. What you will not hear is anything that has to do with what feminism is doing to men such as the false rape industry, the absurd body of sexual harassment law, how men need to learn game or otherwise be shut out of the sexual/relationships market, the current divorce system, children taken away from their fathers and other issues of fathers’ rights, etc. In fact, the entire argument from “anti-feminist” women will avoid anything that is happening to men which effectively means “anti-feminist” women have no problem with 99% of the feminist agenda.
Feminism is really just left wing female supremacism. This means that there are other forms of female supremacism out there such as conservative female supremacism which is what “anti-feminist” women really are. This has also been called lifeboat feminism as what this tries to do is combine elements of feminism and chivalry wherever its best for women creating a mutant hybrid that always benefits women. Hawaiian Libertarian wrote on his blog about a good example of this, the Network of Enlightened Women. If you look at their educate page, you get choice statements like:
By women’s view of empowerment being linked to sexual promiscuity we in fact undermine the very foundations of femininity. This promiscuity devalues women by men seeing them as something that can be used for their own ends and women accepting this status as the tools of men.
Feminists threw away the moral superiority of women, a beautiful counteraction to the physical superiority of men. There is an obvious void in what we call the feminist movement today and a need for a new movement that can do justice not only to the similarities between the sexes but also to the differences.
To promote the Showcase, the NeW chapter at ASU has created a short video asking students four questions: What is a gentleman? What are the characteristics of a gentleman? Are there gentlemen at ASU? Are gentlemen an endangered species?
Student answers range from the serious to the comical. For example, some student responses to the question “What is a gentleman?” include, “just a man that has manners I guess,” “well, we don’t know. We haven’t ever seen one before,” “someone who opens doors, is chivalrous, and a nice guy,” “a gentlemen is a person that likes to do nice things and doesn’t really ask for anything in return” and “someone who is nice and courteous and is always looking out for other people before themselves.”
Remember these aren’t feminists. They’re conservative women. What this proves is that these women despite being “anti-feminist” are just as female supremacist as their feminist counterparts. They just disagree on how to enforce female supremacy.
If you take a look at their entire website you will find nothing about issues that feminism has caused that involve men such as the false rape industry, divorce, etc. It’s all (premarital) sex, abortion, etc. More importantly, there is plenty of shaming language used against men and general blame of men. This shouldn’t be surprising as, for example, divorce is just as common when married to conservative women as not and in the Christian church. They are just as for divorce as feminist women are. They also engage in shaming language against men who practice good judgement in choosing not to get married.
You will also notice the blame put on men for everything, blame that men aren’t being “gentlemen”, blaming men for promiscuity, etc. It’s even to the point where conservative female supremacists blame men for “letting” feminism happen. Men are even being blamed for abortion because it supposedly benefits men:
Let’s get real. Abortion is not good for women; anyone who has had one can attest to that.
Abortion and contraception have been good only for irresponsible males. They now can have sex without fear of the consequences.
In the meantime, women continue to take hormones every day, for years and years, which (despite denials from people with an agenda) does increase their chances of getting breast cancer.
If we use a little common sense, we understand why breast cancer is at epidemic levels.
Whether a woman has an abortion or uses contraception, it is she who bears the physical and psychological burden.
Have we really come a long way? Abortion has enabled men to use our bodies without having to look back and feel any guilt.
Let’s wake up and stop letting men convince us that they really care about us and our right to make choices.
Here we have an example of a conservative female supremacist blaming men for abortion because men are “forcing” women to be in a position where they have to choose abortion (along with “real man” shaming language). In addition, she blames men for an increase in breast cancer rates. There is also plenty of generalized blame against men for when sex happens, as if women have no sex drive whatsoever. (In fact, if you ask a conservative female supremacist about the false rape industry, all they will say about it is that men shouldn’t be having premarital sex, i.e. its their fault, even though a man doesn’t actually have to have sex with a woman to be a victim of the false rape industry. We have seen this in the Duke Lacrosse case and at the University of Maryland where women picked random male names out of a university phone book, putting those names on flyers they passed out saying the men were “potential rapists”.) With all of the ways conservative female supremacists try to blame men for sex, how far away are they from “all heterosexual sex is rape”, really? We shouldn’t be surprised by such a similarity since both feminism and conservative female supremacism are both female supremacist ideologies.
It’s important to know about conservative female supremacism because there are a lot of women who will claim they’re on the side of men because they’re “not a feminist”. Simply “not being a feminist” does not make a woman an ally of men. All it means is that instead of using the state to extract money and other resources from men, they believe marriage is the best way of doing this. They are stepping up their blame and shaming language because many of them are worried that feminists are in the process of destroying their gravy train of taking money and other resources from men. They are right to be worried about that. With the development of game, even if a man doesn’t use game he still understands the real nature of women, and this includes conservative female supremacists.
Of course, there are plenty of men who support and otherwise facilitate conservative female supremacism, but that is a separate topic I will address in a future post.
{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }
Even the football & Ancient Rome-loving enemy of radical feminists, Camille Paglia, famously wrote that:
“It is woman’s destiny to rule men. Not to serve them, flatter them, or hang on them for guidance. Nor to insult them, demean them, or stereotype them as oppressors. …It is not male hatred of women but male fear of women that is the great universal.” (Vamps & Tramps, p. 79-80)
That’s not quite the sense I get when I talk to men about women.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
One of the first myths that need to be demolished is the one declaring “women are morally superior to men,” that is so utterly false.
As for abortion, women have spent the last thirty years denying men any say in whether or not he has any say in the preservation of his unborn child.
Another thing though slightly off topic: Glenn Beck, who is promoting his 9 12 project, is attempting to push a movement of ‘Moms’ to lead against Zero’s policies: for the past two Fridays, he has featured ‘moms’ as leaders. Beck has utterly ignored men. What his actions are going to do will be to further alienate men from women and disrupt marriages.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
divorce is just as common when married to conservative women as not and in the Christian church.
Is this actually true?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56685
Churchgoing women are less likely to cheat too.
http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/07/religion-and-marital-infidelity.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
BTW, a subset of males, alpha males, have gained the most from the current situation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Me and Hermes had a bit of a discussion about men, women and who gains the most from abortion here:
http://wisemansheart.blogspot.com/2009/08/lustful-men-force-innocent-unsuspecting.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Debates between feminist and antifeminist women are just disagreement amongst overseers on how to best wield the (pussy)whip.
SteveinTX
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
@SteveinTX
That’s one way of summing up this post.
@Thursday
Yes, it is true that divorce is as common in the church as outside of it. Since most of the population of the US is Christian of some denomination (somewhere around 80% – 85%, I don’t have the time to look up the numbers right now) it can’t be radically different from the general divorce rate without some non-Christian group with a super high divorce rate.
I know someone is going to bring up the claim that with enough regular church attendance and praying together enough times a week, Christian divorce rates go down. This has various problems obviously because it doesn’t deal with the problem, but acts as an excuse for someone to say, “anyone who gets divorced didn’t pray enough”. In other words, it’s a claim that their faith wasn’t strong enough which is completely subjective and can be used against anyone at anytime regardless of the reality on the ground. And let’s face it, this will be another excuse used to blame men even if his wife was cheating on him with 12 different guys.
As for your second link, it’s talks about SELF REPORTED infidelity. Considering, the lengths conservative female supremacists go to blame men for things, self reporting won’t work. And this is beyond the usual reasons why people are likely to under report infidelity.
While alpha males probably do benefit from abortion, it’s absurd to claim that women would never have abortions without extreme pressure from men. The point is that conservative female supremacists are just like feminists in how they evade responsibility for their actions and try to blame men.
I know someone is going to bring up the claim that with enough regular church attendance and praying together enough times a week, Christian divorce rates go down. This has various problems obviously because it doesn’t deal with the problem, but acts as an excuse for someone to say, “anyone who gets divorced didn’t pray enough”. In other words, it’s a claim that their faith wasn’t strong enough which is completely subjective and can be used against anyone at anytime regardless of the reality on the ground. And let’s face it, this will be another excuse used to blame men even if his wife was cheating on him with 12 different guys.
But it’s an empirical fact that the divorce rate does go down with those other factors that you mention. Stop squirting squid ink.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
But it’s an empirical fact that the divorce rate does go down with those other factors that you mention. Stop squirting squid ink.
No, its not an empirical fact. First, you’re dealing with self reported data so everyone will make themselves look better. Second, if there’s a problem with a marriage enough to cause a divorce there is likely to be less church attendance and less praying as a couple than before said problems. It doesn’t tell you anything, but it gives a good club for socon men (the male facilitators of conservative female supremacism) to use against other men which is why we hear about it so much.
This is why game is so important. Knowing game, regardless if a man uses it or not, tells us the real nature of women. Women who go to church aren’t different.
“Feminists threw away the moral superiority of women, a beautiful counteraction to the physical superiority of men.”
A lot of women have the attitude that they are inherently superior to men in all areas except for the ability to pick up heavy items or kill saber tooth tigers.
Feminism has simply made it easier to recognize the amoral nature of women. The reality is, like men, women have weaknesses unique to their nature to overcome.
Both the male, and female savage need to be civilized. Hypergamy, while a check on male nature, is morally neutral.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women who go to church aren’t different.
In some ways they are different and in some ways they aren’t. This women are equally evil everywhere stuff is retarded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
This women are equally evil everywhere stuff is retarded.
More like, “Women are equally hypergamous everywhere.”
Unless they have little to no sex drive.
*Only then* will you see a woman who doesn’t act amorally.
Do such women tend to graviate towards religion? I don’t know. Could be.
But as long as that tingle exists between their legs, women, no matter their station in life, will act in the predictable manner.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I had an extended, written argument with the events director at the C Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (CBPI). The locus of the dispute was chivalry. She was very much in favor trying to resurrect the idea, while I wasn’t.
She defined chivalry as a kind of servile attention to women’s needs. I explained that the historical compromise of chivalry was simple: women were chaste and obedient, and men protected and provided.
Where, I asked, would a modern man find a chaste and obedient women in the USA? At CBPI?
The woman was quite astonished that a man would even challenge the idea of chivalry. I suspect she’d never heard the word ‘no’ in her entire life. That tells you a lot about how servile most men really are. No man had ever challenged her stupid claims.
Many men defer to women. No wonder they think we’re mentally weak.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Feminists threw away the moral superiority of women, a beautiful counteraction to the physical superiority of men.”
I don’t think this is a very accurate assessment by the woman quoted. Feminists absolutely depend on maintaining the aura of moral superiority they inherited from Victorianism; without it, they would have nothing upon which to stake their claims of superiority over men. They certainly are not empirically more intelligent, more creative, more inventive, or stronger. The edge goes to men in all these categories. The only category they have left is the moral one. They need to be a victim of the male oppressor class. In femarxist theory, this makes them good, the male oppressor bad. This makes them “better”.
My man Gantt has it precisely correct. Nearly all women have been taught from the cradle forward that they are better than men. Even their nursery rhymes (sugar and spice and all things nice…) program them to think in such a way.
“…someone who is nice and courteous and is always looking out for other people before themselves”
Actually I think this is quite a good definition of what being a properly socialized man is. A man who is rude and selfish hoards his generative power for himself and not for the betterment of those around him. In short, a fellow such as this may very well be working evil rather than good with the gift that was given to him.
The difference I guess is who is the recpient of such masculine beneficience. I’ve found that women who talk about “gentlemen” in such a way usually have themselves in mind as the beneficiary of manly courtesy.
“It’s important to know about conservative female supremacism because there are a lot of women who will claim they’re on the side of men because they’re “not a feminist”. Simply “not being a feminist” does not make a woman an ally of men.”
Too right. Socon women are just as hostile in their opinions of men as their liberal sisters. I saw this first-hand when attempting to serve in the nursery in my church. Assuming that them or socon men are MRA allies in this fight would be a big mistake.
” With the development of game, even if a man doesn’t use game he still understands the real nature of women, and this includes conservative female supremacists.”
One of the best things about game, IMHO, is that it strips away the last veneer of any notion of the inherent moral superiority of women (aka female sexism / female chauvinism). To the religious, it demonstrates that women are just as fallen as guys are, and do not belong on the pedestal that Churchianity attempts to put them on. To the irreligious, it demonstrates that women are just simple creatures whose elusive, logically unfathomable nature is really a mask for a lost being wracked by indecision, emotionality and, unless she takes positive steps to control her nature, is ruled by raging animal hormones in a way that would shock many men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Humans are naturally amoral.
But they don’t necessarily have to stay that way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
“…with enough regular church attendance and praying together enough times a week, Christian divorce rates go down.”
This makes intuitive sense. Problem is that Barna’s data (somewhat discredited I think) doesn’t show this.
Unfortunately I have yet to run across a study that shows me that regular church-going Christian chicks conduct paren- or husband-ectomies at rates any different than their secular sisters. I’d shout this fact from the rooftops if I found it, but I can’t, so I won’t.
“Where, I asked, would a modern man find a chaste and obedient women in the USA? At CBPI?
The woman was quite astonished that a man would even challenge the idea of chivalry.”
Which explains why women are usually chivalry cheerleaders. They see it as a system of manners in which men control their baser urges to spit, cuss, piss, and act rudely in the presence of holier women.
A more nuanced understanding of chivalry would suggest that, as you say Javelineer, there are complementary duties that fall upon women in a chivalrous system that most women wouldn’t cotton to.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Problem is that Barna’s data (somewhat discredited I think) doesn’t show this.
Vox Day used data from the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey to show that self-identified conservative Christians have a divorce rate half that of self-identified atheists and agnostics. He does not use Barna’s data. Link is above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, thanks Thursday. I frequent Vox’s site regularly and have been doing so for going on 6 years, so I’m surprised that I missed that.
That said, I am still unconvinced. What VD did show was that Barna’s data is a bit dodgy.
I’d like to see a more rigorous study performed before I draw any kinds of firm conclusions that confirm my intuition that church-going Christians split at rates less than the heathen segments of the population.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“… intuition that church-going Christians split at rates less than the heathen segments of the population.”
One immensely important factor is that conservative Christian women are likely to believe that divorce is non-negotiably wrong. This is the only reason my wife did not divorce me two years into the marriage. Social pressure is also considerable in some congregations, but you have too many girls these days raised to believe in independent thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I made a similar argument concerning feminism during the Chris Brown case:
Chris Brown and Feminist Value Judgments”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m very skeptical of Thursday’s claims that churchgoing women are more likely to stay in line and not go wandering off with other guys. I guess it depends on the regions of the US that you’re talking about too. Lots of churches have devolved into social clubs that people are a part of “just because.” When pressed they’ll say they believe, but how strong is their faith? Also, it’s well documented around the MRAsphere that churches proffer mangina ideas, and this is reflected by the conservative commentary out there as well. Sorry, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that conservative/religious women are any better. And I think this is the heart of Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech’s point – they’re just a different flavor of conniving bitches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I like that:
“Abortion and contraception have been good only for irresponsible males. They now can have sex without fear of the consequences.”
Correction (one I’ve made many times) : Abortion and contraception have been good only for the smaller and smaller share of males getting any anymore. By definition these things make no difference in the lives of the rest of us.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I should clarify what I said above. I think that churchgoing women have a higher chance of staying with a man, that’s for sure. As far as their level of misandry is concerned, however…well, that’s a wash.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Gah…contradicting myself…ok, what I really mean to say is that churchgoing women are probably more likely to stay with a man, but is it really due to faithfulness or just following some rule? In that sense, she might as well have wandered off, if she’s going to become emotionally cold and distant to the extreme. Might be better for the kids though, at least in the short term.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The best place to attack is the claim that ‘Women are Morally Superior to Men.’
In truth, MEN are morally superior to women. Whenever there is genuine mistreatment of women (such as in, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban), there is no shortage of men lining up to fight this injustice, whether on the battlefield or at the policy desk.
However, when there is genuine injustice towards men, I can count on one hand the number of women who actually speak out against it.
So clearly, men are morally superior to women. This is the first line of attack that we must employ.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I’m pretty sure there are more divorces in heavily evangelical parts of the country, but I think that’s only because more people in these places get married, and they get married younger. It isn’t the religion so much that causes the divorce as it is the law of the land. Therefore, I don’t think Christianity really has a positive or negative effect on family stability, but I do think it serves to pressure young men into marriage. Unfortunately, the pressure usually only goes one way (as usual), so the women do what they please.
This isn’t at all the fault of scripture, but I don’t mind putting a fair amount of the blame on opportunistic preachers (I’ve known a few).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that’s true, Welmer.
Right now a large movement is underway in the evangelical wing of Christianity to shame men into marriage, essentially throwing them full-bore into the teeth of the lopsided family law. I suppose that in some circles it’s been effective, but if there weren’t an issue (men avoiding marriage for quite some time), they wouldn’t be harping on it. Of course, no mention is made in any of these harangues about the myriad ways young *women* have changed in the past few decades, because that brand of evangelicalism blames men for everything, as men are the “leaders”. I’m sure you felt like an empowered leader during your divorce, right?
These kinds of “christians” are doing a massive disservice to men — and they wonder why the numbers of men attending their churches are so low.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The “debate” between family-minded women and their feminist adversaries both obscures and highlights some very important realities.
The highlighted realities are obvious so I’ll simply summarize.Women only think of themselves.In the pursuit of their selfish desires they will perform great feats of twisted dialectical somersaults to obtain their ends.And all of their desires,all of their pursuits,all of their somersaults can be described thusly: Use sex to exact the highest possible price from men (both collectively and individually) in exchange for the least possible consideration.
( Pressing matters have unfortunately intervened,I will resume presently)
To be continued…..
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Interesting that when confronted by some actual data that may suggest people should change their minds or at the very least inject some nuance into their ideas, people just deny deny deny. Sometimes the Roissysphere is just retarded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thursday -
Maybe because the stat data — even if accurate — doesn’t change the very human element on the ground, as Indomitable Thoughts put it:
“ok, what I really mean to say is that churchgoing women are probably more likely to stay with a man, but is it really due to faithfulness or just following some rule? In that sense, she might as well have wandered off, if she’s going to become emotionally cold and distant to the extreme”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“and they wonder why the numbers of men attending their churches are so low.”
And Islam is looking better and better to some men. In Britain, non-Muslims are going to Muslim courts, because the British divorce laws are even more anti-male than the US.
I can’t say I blame them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you have an article on that, fifth?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll find one in the near future, and link it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, I’ll look, too. I’ve been expecting this to happen for some time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Non-Muslims turning to Sharia courts in the UK :
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6721158.ece
This does not mention divorce specifically, though. But in this next one :
“this could mean allowing Britain’s 1.8 million Muslims to seek legal recourse in Islamic courts in certain limited cases, such as marriage and divorce, as an alternative to the civil court system.”
http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/blog/worldnews/sharia-law-now-recognized-in-london-uk-courts/
I can’t blame a British man for converting (on paper) to Islam in order to get better divorce laws. Since Muslims want more converts, they will support his attempt to use Sharia principles in his divorce.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I posted links, but they are in moderation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
TYVM. Good catch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m going to have to second what Tupac said. Yeah, the church-going ladies may not divorce as much, sleep around as much, or partake in the Saturday night variety of sins, but … (1) We are overlooking the erosion of theological conservatism and orthodoxy in this country where feel-good churches are du jour; (2) we are overlooking the shallow confessionalism, especially that of the Bible Belt ; and (3) the acculturation process that occurs over generations. Over time, evangelicals and other religious conservatives have drunk the Kool-Aid of gynocentrism and misandry that the larger culture has mixed up in a frat house trash can. That’s why you have the male-bashing of the Marriage Mandate Movement, Promise-Keeperlike “men ministries” that are accountability focused, etc. So, is she going to rape you in the family court? Maybe not, but after being married to her for thirty years, you might wish that she did.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anakin:
Agreed that Social Conservatives place way too much blame on men for things like the sexual revolution, not getting married etc.
However, I have to strongly disagree with your characterization of women in churches. Now, I am willing to make allowances for the fact that you may live in an area where “everyone” is Christian. That generally means that there are a lot of phonies in the pews. However, I’ve dated quite a few women both Christian and non-Christian here in Canada, and the difference in quality is very noticeable. Some Christian women definitely require a stronger hand than others, but at least in my area, I’d estimate the that over 90% of the younger single women in the churches I’ve gone too are marriage material. Caution is always warranted, but there are a lot of good chicks out there.
P.S. Denomination can be an issue too. Eg. I’d say Pentecostal women tend to be of a lower quality than some other Evangelical denominations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thursday,
That raises an interesting question. You see, I am an American living in the southeastern United States. My experience with Christianity comes from that angle. Perhaps Evangelical women outside the U.S. are different in Canada and Britain. I have never the privilege of meeting such creatures in real life. Maybe they haven’t have an agenda like so many American Christian women seem to. But then, I think Gortexgrrl comes from Canada (according to her Amazon profile), and Captain Singleness comes from Britain. If you don’t know who they are, they are among the most outspoken fans of Debbie Maken on the internet. One of them has been a strident critic of mine for some time (ever since my Scripturally Single blog tried to take on the marriage mandators and other male-bashing socons).
Anyway, the problem I have with my fellow American Christians is that too many times they are more American than they are Christian. Christianity is a mess in the U.S. I have to admit that I was very skeptical of your post, ” Why Church Going Guys Don’t Have It That Bad With Women ” but then I’ve read your caveats about the South. It makes sense to me now. My writings on religious misandry come from the Bible Belt/American Christianity perspective. So, tell me, I’d like hear your perspective on religious women outside the lower 49. Maybe Christian guys need to do their own form of expating.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anakin, I never knew that you lived in the Southeast. I don’t mean to imply that your perspective is totally skewed, but that may account for a good amount of the difference between what you’re seeing and the experiences of some of the rest of us. As an American who has lived all his life in the North, I agree with Thursday. Interestingly, since getting involved with a larger church than I’ve ever been a part of before, and meeting people who moved here from the South to go to school, I’ve seen the phenomenon you described as the shallow confessionalism of the Bible Belt. There are a handful of women around who attend church, young singles ministries, sometimes even Bible studies, yet have pictures of themselves on Facebook obviously drunk at bars hanging all over multiple men. One of them, from what I can tell, appears to have left her husband (who was planning to go to seminary) recently. But, perhaps unfortunately for you and others in your area, most of them seem to be transplants from the South.
Even so, they make up only a small percentage of the girls at church. Like Thursday, I’d have to say that the vast majority of girls I’ve met through church or Christian organizations would make fine wives.
(This doesn’t mean that it’s easy for men to get married, though. In the circles I’ve been a part of, the problem has been that post-college, 90% of the girls who are at all physically attractive are already married, and of the rest, there’s usually a reason: she’s just extremely picky, she’s holding out for a very specific idealized vision of “the one”, she’s cold and distant with men and hard to win over, she has some long-distance boyfriend from college who’s nowhere near proposing to her but she’s so emotionally attached to him that she keeps carrying water for the relationship, etc. But, these girls, though somewhat problematic, are not “phonies in the pews;” they take their faith seriously and would do their best to be good wives if they chose to get married.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Debate” continued…
The superficial divide between traditional women and their mod sisters conceals a fundamental commonality between the two groups neither wishes men to know about.
The essence of the traditional type is to play down sexual display,restricting it for marriage.Ostensibly this is a moral position,but in reality it is not.The purpose of restricting (withholding) sex is to raise it’s value and and trade in that higher value for a higher asking -price. The purpose of “free love” is to flaunt it’s (aparent) availability in an effort to whet the appetite of their prospective clients. Seemingly,these two strategies work at cross purposes,but in fact they compliment each other.
Sexual deprivation and sexual arousal are merely two sides of the same proverbial coin.
And here is what “nice” trad women don’t want you to know. By championing traditional moral values after an orgy of female sexual excess, they are engineering a bait and switch routine so as to capitalize on the resulting shifts that they hope will accompany their latest campaign.
Like a market manipulator who sells-off a large stock portfolio causing holders of that stock to lose money. ( After he has taken his profits,of course.) In addition,our manipulator fully intends to use some of his profits-obtained at the expense of other investors,i.e. men- to repurchase stock cheaply,thereby positioning himself for yet more profits in the next bull market,i.e the next “liberationist” impulse.
The ebbs and flows of female sexual strategy are as predictable as the cycle of the seasons.
Or as the French say plus ca change,plus c’est la meme chose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hermes,
Maybe I should qualify what I wrote. I agree that shallow confessionalism is a problem in the South. However … that still leaves Christian men facing some other undesirable behaviors from women. You have women outside the South (and inside it, too) are very devout and religious alright. The problem is that (1) they think it’s God will for you to be an ATM for her suburban dreams, (2) they may have whacky views about courtship, (3) subscribe to neo-chivalry, (4) still think you’re to blame for everything that goes wrong because the Bible calls you to “headship”, (5) thinks you should be the stoic fall guy that just takes the pain and doesn’t ask questions about it, (6) think you sex drive is sinful or needs to be strictly regulated–even within marriage, (7) on #6, thinks it’s her job to just show up and look pretty. They can misquote scriptures and their favorite cornpone theologians to back up this garbage. PMAFT is right about conservative women. I would say to Thursday and you that “religious” and “devout” women can be just as bad if what they believe is some theological error that puts men in the old role of wage slave and disposable sex. I remind you guys that the neo-chivalry, blame-the-male crew writing for Boundless come from places like Ohio, Colorado, etc. as well as from the South. The problem, I think, is not just the South, but Christianity in the Anglosphere. “Marriage material” for me is a woman who is conformed to Christ, not just “devout” about some whacky socon garbage that masquerades as Christianity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Open and shut case of libel, I’d think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey guys, first time posting here. Great site. Everyone here seems to have a real intellectual approach to the MRM. I’m just chiming in here because I was born and raised in South Carolina. I went to an upper-upper-middle class highschool and then UGA for college. My view on most of the church going girls I knew was that they didn’t take their beliefs seriously at all. The social stigma of being a whore was a little bit more prevalent probably, but it seemed to me they still were attracted to the guys who personified the rebellious stereotype. Many of those guys are the ones who never went to or finished college. I remember noting how often a lot of the girls would go on vacations with there families, or travel to college towns with their older siblings, and although my view is based on speculation and rumor mongering, I got the distinct feeling they used those oppurtunities away from their peer group to whore out. Plus, as I’m sure was the case at many schools, many of the “incrowd” simply swapped around boyfriends and girlfriends where by the end of High School, anyone who was attractive and not a prude had been with just about everyone else of like mind. It was like one big game of spin the bottle, but involved sex filled short term relationships. I’m sure each school has its own mini-culture of sorts when it comes to sex, and I fear its a far worse situation now and days, as I was in highschool during the early 90′s. Oh yeah, I just remembered going to several overnight church lock-ins and seeing plenty of the people using it as hook up time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just plain dislike all women, and marriage.
To me, women are all just assholes, and a simple phase of life that passes by quickly. And marriage is just loveless, pointless, useless, business. Haha.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Just like someone said, women are conditioned from birth to think they’re ‘better’ then men. I think they’re also conditioned from birth to hate men as well. They’re taught that men are cheaters and rapists etc. And taught to ‘be careful’ of them. Marriage is just pointless as well, it should just be banned, honestly. Anti-feminist does not mean pro-ma, all the rest of you women are just as anti-man as feminists, stop pretending! Assholes, you can all go fuck yourselves! I’m tired of women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Sorry I meant to say “Anti-feminism isn’t pro-man*”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gokhan, I’m sure you will make a great wife for some lucky guy one of these days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“It is woman’s destiny to rule men. Not to serve them, flatter them, or hang on them for guidance. Nor to insult them, demean them, or stereotype them as oppressors. …It is not male hatred of women but male fear of women that is the great universal.” (Vamps & Tramps, p. 79-80)
And many foolish MRAs have the gall to call that woman an “anti-feminist”. Simply because that’s what she calls herself (out of convenience, or whatever).
She is a feminist through and through, and if the above quote is not textbook feminism/female supremacism, I don’t know what is.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“BTW, a subset of males, alpha males, have gained the most from the current situation.”
Correction: the female demographic has gained the most from the current situation; which is perfectly logical.
Alpha males, a distinct subset of males, have adapted to a hostile environment, and in doing so, are “making the most of it”.
However they are still working within a feminist system which threatens at all times to remove his wealth, livelihood etc.
Comparatively the female demographic has “deeply gained” and “deeply benefited” from feminism. Their gains are concrete and cannot be easily taken away as in the case of the alpha male.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Both the male, and female savage need to be civilized.”
The last-half century has shown beyond a doubt that the female human is a more savage animal.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“I don’t think this is a very accurate assessment by the woman quoted. Feminists absolutely depend on maintaining the aura of moral superiority they inherited from Victorianism; without it, they would have nothing upon which to stake their claims of superiority over men.”
Not nowadays. Now women have the power social/economic/legal/otherwise. It doesn’t matter what they say or do, they still control the show.
When the movement started, and even up until a few decades ago; sure women were dependent upon that image. Not any more. The game has changed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I can’t blame a British man for converting (on paper) to Islam in order to get better divorce laws. Since Muslims want more converts, they will support his attempt to use Sharia principles in his divorce.”
Oh well, let them appeal to Shar’ia principles and Shar’ia courts all they want – the law is the law.
A British man might wish to fool around in Shar’ia courts that have no legal authority, the Feminist/Matriarchal official legal system has the final word.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What does that mean?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@PM/AM Tech:
Good post. Great to see I wasn’t the only one who got the same vibe from the allegedly-conservative women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The only result of their exploitive attitude and amorality will be the complete collapse of civilisation. And an abysmal rift betwin women and Men. It’s too late to repair the damage this civilisation is doomed thank to female supremacist of both rigth and left, and of every where betwin them.
The only thing to do is walking away and be anti-chevalrous as much you can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“In truth, MEN are morally superior to women. Whenever there is genuine mistreatment of women (such as in, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban), there is no shortage of men lining up to fight this injustice, whether on the battlefield or at the policy desk. ”
This is an incredibly weak and stupid argument. Do you really think women are not outraged by the various mistreats they may endure at the hands of a male? Of course. Can they do anything about with out getting their asses kicked by men who are generally stronger than they are? Of course not. As for the policy desk- women do fight for womens rights in countries such as America and Europe where they are not oppressed. Also, in many middle eastern countries such as those you mentioned their mistreatment is instituionalized and they’re brain-washed from birth to accept it. And no men don’t simply line up to defend woman, many men such as yourself are very probably willing to make excuses for that kind of behavior.
No one seem to want to bring up the fact that fundamentally feminism is about equality. The idea that men and women are equal in dignity. Its purpose isn’t in bringing down men, quoting radicals and witnessing shallow internet debates are hardly convincing. There is also a precedent for going after masculinity- that is the fact that throughout all of human history women have been mistreated by men much, much, more often than women have mistreated men. This is simply because of the fact that men are physically stronger and more aggressive. This is not to say men are physically “superior”- male strength is indeed important to society but the womb is more important for obvious reasons. Yes, more important because women have to carry babies for nine months, whereas the male’s use of his penis involves maybe ten minutes. Does than mean women are “superior” to men physically? Well, what meaning does the word “superior” have in this context? None at all really so it is a meaningless question.
Also, what is with this laughable stereotype that all women want to enslave men with marriage? Seriously? How childish are you people? And why is marriage so bad? If you don’t like it fine, a lot of women don’t either but it isn’t bad in and of itself. You think women use men and men don’t use women? Come on, I implore to think for two seconds.
“Not nowadays. Now women have the power social/economic/legal/otherwise. It doesn’t matter what they say or do, they still control the show.”
This is manifestly wrong. Should I even bother to point out that more men are in politics (obviously because it is more expected of a man to enter into politics)?
What this all weaks of is male supremacy and the revilment towards any concept that undermines it. None of you bother to criticize the fundamental concept of feminism because you know you don’t have a leg to stand on so you attack some radicals on the periphery.
As a self-respecting man, I say fuck you! I like my girlfriend, she doesn’t try to manipulate me, or I her, we accept each other. Maybe if y’all would grow out of your immature misogyny and silly suspicions you could have the same thing.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Excuse the typos. I’m in a hurry!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Only such a shining example of a mangina could type with a lisp.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Feminism is to equality, like communism is to sharing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With men like T around, we don’t need feminist women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
T
I appreciate your mangina/white knighting perspective. We need a few examples of this on here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I must add to my previous observation, only a few examples–and I loathe white knights more than feminists. T, do you know what a male feminist is? You are barely awake, have not looked at or researched anything, especially the numerous and increasing misandric policies which affect you and every man in the anglosphere every day. Do you honestly believe anyone except feminists and other manginas will take you seriously here? From what I’ve seen, there are very few of them and they don’t last long, nor will you. Suggest using LOGIC and benefiting from the vast experience and research of the men on here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Whenever there is genuine mistreatment of women (such as in, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban), there is no shortage of men lining up to fight this injustice, whether on the battlefield or at the policy desk.”
Why the heck are men doing that actually?
That does not prove men as “morally superior”. It proves them as sheepish idiots. They care more about the “mistreatment of women” in distant lands than they do about their fellow man in their own lands.
This whole thing of viewing male worth in terms of how we treat women properly is very pro-feminist and perverted.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Even the football & Ancient Rome-loving enemy of radical feminists, Camille Paglia, famously wrote that”
Paglia is NOT an enemy of “radical feminists” (as if there is any other kind, feminism being the belief that men are not human beings). When will this myth die? She’s a femliar as any other.
There is no such thing as a good feminist, and Paglia is no exception.
Does the quote you provided not tell you that Paglia is a standard-fare misandrist feminist? Is that not clear to you?
“It is woman’s destiny to rule men. Not to serve them, flatter them, or hang on them for guidance. Nor to insult them, demean them, or stereotype them as oppressors. …It is not male hatred of women but male fear of women that is the great universal.” (Vamps & Tramps, p. 79-80)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paglia’s overarching belief is that women should rule men. In typical female/feminist logic, this means women can’t insult, demean or stereotype them. In actual fact, when one rules someone, one is free to do all these things.
Another femliar, it is transparently seen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Debates between feminist and antifeminist women are just disagreement amongst overseers on how to best wield the (pussy)whip.”
Precisely.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
That guy T from Jan 15th is retarded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
quote from T: “No one seem to want to bring up the fact that fundamentally feminism is about equality”
sheesh what a rube.
Also about “Debbie Maken” mentioned above–she is one of the worst “writers” on this topic. She hates men –if you look at the single book she had published it oooozes with “its all men’s fault” sad very very sad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You fellers do realize you have breasts and nippled don’tchya? You can even lactate under certain circumstances.
Also, male fetuses and male babies are weakest and most vulnerable whereas female babies are hardier.
And guess what? WHO CARES?
Lighten up, people. Get some sunshine!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
And we all start off a female too – the female is the template from which all is made. And, you’re right, Vitamin – – WHO CARES?
It’s embarrassing how consumed these men are with the female gender.
Get off the internet and enjoy the sunshine; it might make you feel better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well I don;t know. I think maybe know one really knows who to blame and I don’t think blamming fixes things. I personally don’t think either man or woman is superior. I think we are different but compatable. Feminism or whatever you want to call it is so pervasive that it is in the church as well. So of course the women there are confused. I’m an old woman and things were different when I was younger. With all the garbage that is flying now I just don’t think men and woman like each other at all. I think all we have now is hatred periond which does nothing for anything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 3 trackbacks }