Glenn Sacks has written an explanation of what happened when Kathryn Joyce, the professional anti-Christian feminist who is working on Salon.com’s dime, called him up for an interview. Kathryn, whose sensationalist article was followed by Judy Berman’s threats of war on men in Salon.com, did her best to connect “MRA” to terrorism through the George Sodini incident. It was a cheap, transparent ploy, and I really can’t see why it surprises anyone.
However, what does surprise me is that people still think something can be won through reasonable negotiation with feminists. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, then I would have to say a number of MRA guys are madmen.
The idea that men can find common ground with feminists is just as silly as the idea that women can go to “war” against men. It’s all ridiculous rhetoric, and would make a good comedy if it weren’t for the innumerable tragedies playing out around America every day due to dysfunctional law. Perhaps the best way to deal with these women, as Roissy suggests, is to employ Game. Kathryn Joyce’s rhetoric has all the hallmarks of sublimated sexual frustration, which isn’t all that different from the catalyst for George Sodini’s deadly outburst, except for the fact that women like Joyce take out their aggression in a social rather than physical manner. Ironically, social aggression such as Kathryn’s tends to breed physical aggression in men, so there is a symbiotic kind of violence here.
What we have here is an escalating war dance played out by extremists on both sides. Joyce and Berman are both eager to accuse MRA of recruiting potential martyrs, but their excitement over that scenario is plain to see. The point has often been made that many women prefer bad boys — they pursue serial killers and rapists out of some biological imperative to seek out dominant men. Joyce and Berman only reinforce this, as they are extremely excited over the prospect of doing battle with angry men. It is the classic case of mutual domestic violence, but they can’t see it because their own sexual impulses cloud their judgment, leading them to foment the very situation that stimulates them the most.
Men should refuse to engage. This is really the essence of Game. Let them come to you like a fury, but deny them the power to manufacture drama. And make no mistake — this is all about drama. Feminist struggle against “batterers” is pure pornography for the women in the DV industry; there is nothing they want more than to provoke fights and imagine sexual tension building up over mutual animosity. This is the fuel that feeds the fire, without which it would be nothing more than a pile of wet snow on a smoldering log.
Think about this: Joyce’s burning passion against the Christian “patriarchy” is due to a deep-seated revulsion about the idea of being in a submissive relationship. Rather than do her duty and accept sex as the passive act she imagines it to be in Christian relationships, she wants to be fiery and filled with passion during her sexual encounters. Rage and anger is the passion that gets her going the most, so causing anger and conflict is an imperative, whether she consciously realizes that or not.
Every time the stakes are raised through laws or drama, the potential for conflict is heightened considerably. This is highly erotic to some women — especially feminists. If it weren’t, they’d happily don the metaphorical hijab and submit to men, knowing that that is a much easier and more peaceful path to take. But no, Joyce and her ilk want passionate love tinged and spiced with anger and danger, and like junkies they keep shooting more dope into their arms, all the while plunging the rest of society into chaos. What we have to ask is whether it’s really worth it to indulge these extreme individuals. For most of us, it obviously is not, but the devil drives!
This is the human condition, men. See these kinds of women for the dangerous beasts they are, and face them boldly and defiantly, giving not an inch of compromise, or put up a fence and keep them out. Would you invite the she-wolf into the pasture to talk about your flock? Of course not. You keep her out or else you tame her and make her your bitch. With recalcitrant feminists, the former is the much more practical and sensible route to take.
Kathryn and Judy, if you two want to go to war, leave the little people out of it. Find yourselves a sociopath who can satisfy your lust for gender war, and live the dramatic life of conflict that fulfills you down there. There are men who will oblige you, but you will have to seek them out, because they are no more prevalent than women like you. However, because you are already hot on the trail of war and violence, I trust something will come up, and your wishes will be fulfilled.
Then will you stop bothering the peaceful majority?
{ 52 comments… read them below or add one }