With either help or direction from her publishers, Hymowitz baited readers with a yellow op-ed, insulting cover art and a goading thesis. At least Micheal Kimmel deigned to call his frat-boy scapegoats “guys.” Hymowitz refers to those guys as “child-men” and the book cover shows a baby dressed as a man. It was a sensationalistic and trashy move, but we live in a sensationalistic, trashy culture.
The real problem is that this belittling pitch detracted from the more measured — and often sympathetic — tone of the book itself.
Hymowitz knows that the 20-something, Gen-Y guys she is talking about aren’t children. Her argument is that they are stuck in an extended adolescence — what she calls “preadulthood” — that was a necessary byproduct of the knowledge economy.
My paternal grandfather never graduated from high school. He went straight to work. After spending WWII in the Navy, he ended up working for the Pennsylvania Railroad, and stayed on there until he retired.
Jobs like that are few and far between these days. Kids raised in the 80s, 90s and aughts were raised to go to college and “find themselves” in some fulfilling career, working with their heads instead of their backs. The stable lunch pail jobs were often outsourced, and replaced with job growth in more creative, exciting jobs.
These jobs require education and many offer no linear career path, so if young people want to be “fulfilled” by their careers, they often have to put off getting married and having children. This is true of males and females alike, and while Hymowitz makes much of the “New Girl Order,” she acknowledges that those successful girls are also stuck in a kind of pre-adulthood, too. However, they hear their biological clocks ticking, and they are up against a pressure to get things underway that simply isn’t as pressing for males.
Hymowitz overplays the size and importance of the creative class — while those jobs abound in major metropolitan areas (like New York — Hymowitz lives in Brooklyn), there are too many aspiring graphic designers, web designers, script writers and photographers everywhere else. She also seems to inhabit a mental world where everyone went to Brown or Wesleyan or some posh east coast school, and one wonders if she is writing about the sexes in America, or just Sex in the City.
She is correct, though, that the knowledge and service economies demanded skills which matched female tendencies. Hymowitz concedes that whether nature or nurture is to blame — she’s not sure herself — “manufacturing’s loss has been women’s gain” She also notes that while males aged 13-34 have eluded marketers, young females buy a lot of stuff, and it made sense for employers to look for women to help them create designs and promotions that appealed to their target demographics. This is easy enough to verify. I’ve noted for years that design seems to be getting “cuter” and virtually all of the new businesses in a neighborhood near to me were created by and for women. My favorite is “branch and birdie : retail catering to the modern home, woman and child.” (Notice who is missing…) She writes of the “Bridget Jones economy”:
“the uncomfortable truth is that youthful female careerism is closely intertwined with the growth of consumption for two reasons. First, working women make and spend a lot of money. Second, women can find satisfying (passion-filled?) careers centered around the sorts of products on which women like to spend money.”
Refreshingly, the author doesn’t blame the ad agencies or the media for pandering to women or to her child-men; she understands that most successful marketing trends exploit an existing demand.
When it comes to feminist heroes and doctrine, Hymowitz is not afraid to criticize Betty Friedan, who she portrays as being a bit spoiled and delusional, or Micheal Kimmel. She dismisses Kimmel’s tired 1970s neo-Marxist race and gender “entitlement” narrative tidily:
“The college-educated inhabitants of Kimmel’s Guyland never knew a world where women weren’t lawyers and managers or where slayers named Buffy didn’t take care of the vampires.”
Hymowitz matches Kimmel’s bitterness, sublimated envy and ideological blindness with a schoolmarmish, obsessive horror of crude boyish humor — which is I imagine how she justifies the “child-man” moniker. But when she’s not wagging her finger or harrumphing about Maxim or Adam Sandler movies, she seems to understand that our society has made it clear that men are expendable as fathers and even in the workplace — so they sometimes act accordingly.
Hymowitz believes that most men want families, albeit after the age when women want them, and she says that men will have to “man up” if they want to have those families. This feels like an afterthought, because while she spends the entire book outlining the problems young men and women face she offers no solutions whatsoever. She admits that the modern young man is “free as men have never been free before,” but gives no suggestions as to changes that could be made to encourage men to invest in families and careers before they’ve had their fill of beer and sluts.
Perhaps she realizes the kind of changes that would be necessary, and doesn’t dare.
________________
** If you enjoyed this article, please click “like” on my Facebook page to keep up with my work on this and other sites.
{ 211 comments… read them below or add one }
Perhaps someone should ask her why she thinks she has the right to impose her oppressively matriarchal definition of “adulthood” on the strong, independent men in our society who are bravely choosing to defy traditional stereotypes and redefine successful manhood on their own terms.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
195 
5
The great Tom Leykis and callers rips Kay a new one.
http://audio.myprops.org/971/886984.mp3
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
2
Speaking of kimmel, might be time for a blog invasion, see below.
Is your man stuck in Guyland?
May 23, 2011 – 6:04PM
Guyland is a mysterious place. It’s a land where women have to tiptoe around, being careful not to disturb the peace, making sure we’re not doing anything to jeopardise the tranquillity of its inhabitants. We constantly have to make a conscious effort not to do anything too startling – act needy, get attached, fall in love – that might trigger the male mind into thinking that we’re trying to pull them out of their euphoria.
The term, coined by sociologist Michael Kimmel, author of Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men, says that these men – a demographic of over 22 million – are obsessed with never wanting to grow up and crave video games, sports and depersonalised sexual relationships.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/blogs/ask-sam/is-your-man-stuck-in-guyland-20110523-1f002.html#ixzz1NAgGz1T8
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
This is key. For some reason, people don’t think in terms of incentives when it comes to men as a demographic. But the only way to get people to do anything is to provide incentives—that’s how human beings work.
The reason men don’t “man up” is because it’s not really in their interests to do so. Attempting to browbeat them into manning up (providing only a negative incentive) is not sufficient, you need to provide some reward (positive incentive) for them having done so. Previous iterations of human civilization have done this: the negative incentive was the shame, infamy and denial of status to men who didn’t “man up”, and the positive incentive was that they would marry young, fertile women and head families with their paternity largely guaranteed thus giving them a stake in society. These days, the shame part of the equation is still very much intact, but the positive incentive has completely withered…and yet men are expected to behave the same? I’m not saying that we should necessarily go back to the positive incentives of yesteryear—I don’t have much desire to be a pack mule for a nagging (if young and attractive) wife and mewling children only to drop dead at 45 from work-related stress, a hideous death in battle, etc. even if it means I get to be nominally in charge at home—just not a worthy trade-off, in my view. But those positive incentives must be replaced with something. If we don’t want to turn back the clock a bit that’s really fine by me but then we’re going to have to get creative and find other ways to incentivize men—we just don’t seem to be interested in doing that.
Whenever I read stuff like how men should “man up”, part of the reason I’m so put off is that it’s clearly an attempt to bully me into doing something that will benefit others at their expense…without providing men any incentive to go against their own interests. Everything in our society acknowledges the necessity of incentives for all manner of demographics but not for men, not really. To ignore this basic human need in men is, well, vaguely dehumanizing.
Women got to redefine what it means to be a woman…but apparently being a man is supposed to be more-or-less the same as it always was. Eh, fuck that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
189 
3
dragnet
“Women got to redefine what it means to be a woman…but apparently being a man is supposed to be more-or-less the same as it always was. Eh, fuck that.”
Superb, another gem.
As the blinders come off, at long last, lots of men are now begining to realize they have always been considered as disposable wage slave cannon fodder. We actually thought, and many still do, that we were valued and even thought the praise was genuine. My arse. Just a highly efficient way of exploiting and fooling men to act in everyway possible against his own interest. e.g chivalry white knight cap’t save a ho etc. Not forgetting the power of the male rationalization hamster.
The traditional or feminist women both want men to continue to fulfil the same role. Just different ways of capture and enforcement. Check the divorce and custody stats or male deaths at work et al.
As you say,,, Feck that !
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
89 
2
Why would a young man in the prime of life sign up for the prison of marriage when they see all these bitchy entitlement princesses acting like hard assess (Buffy? bitch please.). They also see women gloating about “taking him to the cleaners”. Do they think we haven’t been paying attention?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
120 
1
“For some reason, people don’t think in terms of incentives when it comes to men as a demographic.”
Another thing I cannot help but notice is that virtually everyone with an agenda – feminists, traditionalists, conservatives, liberals – consider themselves justified and empowered to tell men how they should behave, what they should and shouldn’t do, what roles they should assume, what “healthy” masculinity is and which hoops should they jump through in order to become “real men” etc. For them it’s self-evident that they get to decide what constitutes proper manhood and that they should be able to tell men what to do.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
113 
1
Women are opposed to the very concept of adulthood and now men are supposed to man up?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
83 
1
“we’re trying to pull them out of their euphoria.”
oh, so they get that these ‘guys’ (rather be a guy than a grrrll) are happy then?
I guess that’s what truly winds them up.
“she says that men will have to “man up” if they want to have those families”
I guess I would have to sucker-up, if I hadn’t already decided that doing such a thing was tantamount to signing over everything I own, earn and will earn to an empowered sociopath – no thanks. not interested, not interested in paying for it either.
Even if they change the law, they could change it back in ten years time. Trust is GONE baby, and it doesn’t come back just because you change your tune.
Was it Welmer (some time ago) who pointed out that the blinkers have been removed from many men, and having seen what teh wimmenz are really like, there’s no forgetting it.
No marriage 2.0, marriage 1.0 was for suckers (those days are gone) and I don’t care what marriage 3.0 looks like.
My guess is that they’ll keep ramping up taxes on workers to pay for armies of single baby-mummies (the UK already does this). Only works as long as men keep working, eastern europe is the (dystopian) future.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
78 
2
“Man up” only ever means “be or do anything that benefits women”.
More and more men are finally enjoying their freedom and this is pissing women off.
Tough.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
111 
1
Rorshach,
was that ‘tough’ with a big shit eating grin?
The future is going to be interesting, get some popcorn and beer
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
2
I urge of all you to listen to the Tom Leykis interview posted in a comment above by KARMA MRA MGTOW. Take the 8 minutes to enjoy Hymowitz taking a drubbing. She knew she was losing the debate, too, which is part of what makes the interview so pleasurable.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
20 
68
Marriage is primarily about having children. The decline of marriage is driven primarily by one simple, undeniable fact: American men have NO reproductive rights. No reproductive rights for men equals no marriage benefits for men. No benefits equal no incentive.
Hymowitz makes the issue a whole lot more complicated than it really is. The surprising thing is not that marriage rates are declining, but that any men at all get married nowadays.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
84 
1
OT.
wimminz are so ‘strong and independent’. Next they will be campaigning for the ‘right’ to listen to music at work full time so they can concentrate.
I wonder how men hunting woolly mammoths would have done if they had to listen to ipods to calm their nerves at the possibility of being stomped to death by the woolly mammoth.
Pretty much everything women are campaigning for now is a complete joke and they should be treated with the dis-respect and disdain they deserve.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389910/Schoolgirl-wins-right-listen-iPod-exams–concentrate-listening-music.html
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
5
I would also strongly recommend you listen to this radio interview
Probably one of the best and most revealing for any man. It should really help remove your blinkers.?
Have a break sit back kick off your shoes and listen in amazement. Especially to what the woman says. Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.
http://geniusrealms.com/reasoningshow/show10.htm
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Karma. This was my post to SMH.
Ah Sam, some more man bashing eh?
I for one escaped the slavery of ‘wife and children’ and now happily live in what is being called ‘guyland’.
I encourage ALL young men to refuse to go into the slavery of ‘wife and children’ while the family courts are so clearly a criminal enterprise.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
3
@Young men.
Never forget the result in my case. 5% vs 95%.
Kay Horrorhead wants you to ‘man up’ so that the woman can get 95% and you can get 5%.
“5% is the new 50% if you happen to be a man”
Look at the complete LACK of denouncement of my ex by women. Indeed. I have gone to the trouble to gather up the evidence that 250 of the most feted and wealthiest women in Ireland will PROTECT a woman who has committed crimes and AGREE with a 5% vs 95% split. I am just about to release their emails to the public as well so WOMEN can ask these WOMEN why it is exactly that they protected a criminal WOMAN and agreed with 5% vs 95%.
Why did they not denounce my ex for the criminal she is?
Why did they not denounce 5% vs 95% for the crime it is?
@Young men. I’ve taken the HUGE risk of putting everything I ever earned on the line to have to get it back at a later date through newly proclaimed courts. Don’t let the evidence I so painstakingly gathered go to waste. You are being HATED ON be the VAST MAJORITY of western women. Do NOT listen to their lies about how they care about you and how you should ‘man up’. Review the evidence I prepared for you and then TELL ALL YOUR MATES.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/80/threadid/337/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
6
Yeah, I see Hymowitz as a woman who could be a decent ally to men, if she wasn’t addicted to the crack her rationalization hamster gives her. She gets it right in some places, and is refreshingly honest. But she holds tightly to the old-school hero/provider role of manhood idealized by conservative feminists, while taking for granted that an American woman is worth providing for.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
5
“Why would a young man in the prime of life sign up for the prison of marriage when they see all these bitchy entitlement princesses acting like hard assess (Buffy? bitch please.). They also see women gloating about “taking him to the cleaners”. Do they think we haven’t been paying attention?” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This group-think “day dream” that Euro and American women participate in will end only when the wheels of service and social order slow down toward an abrupt halt. The more and more MEN whom drop off the wage-slave work lines (growing unemployment w/ the new generation) the more and more women who will suffer from their absence!
Once again, WHO will protect Susis Sucksalot and Frumpy Franny when law and order breaks down or in more genteel terms, who will fix the air-conditioning in Lilly Lesbian’s formerly cozy corner office? Hmm Cupcake?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
4
Don’t ever mistake the Kay Hymenfarts of the world with our friends.
She has to acknoledge that men are free at last because we demonstrably are. Fourty years ago it was all theory.
Don’t embrace feminists because their rationalization hamsters looked around before commenting. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
1
OT…one more example of why not to get married.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1389764/As-I-said-vows-I-knew-I-marrying-wrong-man-One-womans-confession-devastating-mistake-life.html
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
As I have said before: I have never been accused of failing to be a man, by reason of the single fact that I am single – both men and women seem to be somewhat envious. It is my observation that it is women who do not want to marry/have children, not that anyone berates them for that.
Leykis is far too gentle and defensive with Hymowitz – should have gone on the attack. If women want to remain single/childless, then I will treat them accordingly – as it is not for me to tell anyone how to run their lives.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
“She is correct, though, that the knowledge and service economies demanded skills which matched female tendencies.”
Like almost everything else, the technologies behind the knowledge and service economies were all created by Men. Facebook was created by what hymowitless would call a man-child.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
1
Gendeau May 23, 2011 at 04:51
“eastern europe is the (dystopian) future.”
Yep. I’ve been saying this for over two years now.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
3
“Hymowitz believes that most men want families, albeit after the age when women want them, and she says that men will have to “man up” if they want to have those families.”
Or translated “you better hurry up or your gonna lose out; you’re gonna be a loser”. Classic marketing gimick. “Act now while supplies last!”
But it don’t work that way. A man in his 30s and 40s can easily marry a younger woman. His market pool increases with age while hers declines.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
1
Basically. This really explains why there is no serious effort to engage men–we are viewed as expendable. As Obsidian likes to say, “Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.” This idea is deeply embedded in the human psyche, and is one of the last sacred and unchallenged maxims that guide human behavior.
Not sure I agree here. I think in past iterations of human civilization the women were immensely grateful for the sacrifices men made…because they were socialized that way. Women were taught to value male sacrifice, strength, responsibility, steadiness, decency, etc. and so they did. Left to their own devices they probably would’ve thought those qualities were as boring then as they do now—it’s just that they weren’t allowed to. I think their gratitude was genuine—a genuine reflection of the mores and values of that particular version of human civilization.
Same goes for men, really. If guys could’ve gotten commitment free sex with no responsibilities whatsoever then they wouldn’t have valued family, marriage, honor, etc the way they did. They were as much reflections of their culture as the women.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
4
Who would want to be married to this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1389578/Katie-Prices-11k-hairdo-horror-She-flies-3-000-miles-spends-48-hours-salon-extensions-leave-hair-damaged-falls-out.html
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
I kindly ask you to fuck off, Lara. I’m sure nobody cares about you. Well, not on this site anyway.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
16
PAN, if I had a nickel for every crappy haircut I got from some flaky “stylist” I could retire…..
One time years ago my wife recommended some dude, so I went for a cut. He was queer as a 3 dollar bill. Came out of there looking like a French Poodle.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
4
@Lara
American men are not spoiled. Their jobs are gone over seas. Family courts have given men almost no rights to their children. Men have no reproductive rights.
1. How many saw mills have closed down when the companies figured out its cheaper to ship the logs over seas? I know many men in my area that have had to relocate to work in miserable conditions.
2. How many men lose custody to hags? I wanted to spend lots of time with my son but his mother was more interested in how much money she could get from me. Fuck what he needed!
3. How many stories do you hear having to pay child support to a woman who took semen out of a condom?
Its just a matter of time before the government get to top heavy from all the fat cows trying to run their utopia. It will fall apart!
Gru
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
52 
2
“As Obsidian likes to say, >>Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap<<.”
This has indeed been the norm throughout history. However, I'd argue it obviously rests on three assumptions that apply less and less these days:
1. Men are willing to freely contribute sperm i.e. a) have unprotected sex with b) donate sperm to any woman.
2. Men are willing to white-knight for women.
3. Women are willing to a) bear a number of children during their years of peaking fertility b) display good mothering skills.
A woman's eggs are as precious as she makes them. A man is expendable to the extent he lets himself to be. If a woman is a careerist and she delays pregnancy to a point where she can no longer conceive naturally, then objectively speaking her eggs aren't worth shit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
1
For women with baby rabies: there is a lab in England that produces artificial sperm.
They should use that.
Good enough for them.
Or monkey sperm.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
I prefer to simply tell any female that I’m seeing that “Because of my career plans I’m years from being able to commit to a relationship” I just don’t tell them that its at least fifty years.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
2
“No marriage 2.0, marriage 1.0 was for suckers (those days are gone) and I don’t care what marriage 3.0 looks like.”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Marriage 3.0″ is already creeping in….
You see it in Gen Y “starter marriages” (fairly new term) that last about 4-5 years with no kids because Susie chose an Omega to begin with. Plus the new trend of “married but separate” where the wife lives SOMEWHERE ELSE other than with her Husband and he foots the bill (yes, this is happening!)
I predict the next few years will see “special marriages” where the wifey moves her queer shopping partner/stylist into the household and dares her husband to object.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
6
@ Höllenhund
I agree, but that maxim explains why our society has been so slow to address the issues of men (young men, in particular). Society still operates as if “eggs are expensive/sperm is cheap” even as that has become less and less relevant. Not surprising, as large groups are usually much slower to adapt than individuals.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
I predict the next few years will see “special marriages” where the wifey moves her queer shopping partner/stylist into the household and dares her husband to object.
LOL. That actually sounds like great idea. It would leave the woman free to do the enjoyable parts of being a wife and mother (sex and childcare) while the gay man does the grunt work of cooking and cleaning. The ultimate solution for the woman who needs a wife! Utopia!!!
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
17
@ dragnet
It also explains why the vast majority of men, especially the younger ones, simply don’t practice self-preservation. Disposability is in our genes.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
I was watching a documantary on cable yesterday about the real Area 51 in the 1950′s and 60′s. They asked the guy if he wanted to work on a top secret government project. He said “Ok, but I have to go home and ask my wife.”
They scratched him off the list right then and there.
I wanted to jump up and high five my tv.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
1
“For some reason, people don’t think in terms of incentives when it comes to men as a demographic.”
Oh, they do, they do. Not the average woman. But a thinker like Kay Hymowitz knows that the problem is the lack of incentives (she states so clearly) and, therefore, the solution is creating new incentives for men to create families.
But some incentives are impossible to create (going back to a manufacturing economy). And other incentives mean that women would have to give up some of their privileges….THE HORROR! When they realize, these fembots start issuing “syntax error! syntax error!” and their face turns into the “blue screen of death” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Screen_of_Death)
For the modern thinker, drowned in feminism from childhood, telling that women have to give up something (even if it is to get something better) is UNTHINKABLE. It is like telling a fundamentalist Muslim that the solution to his problem is to burn all the Qur’ans in the world and to paint pictures of Mohammed fucking a camel.
So they tie themselves in knots trying to solve this cognitive dissonance. They know that changes are necessary but any change will be something that women have to give up. So this is why the book ends up without solutions.
This is the plight of modern woman. The traditional woman had some excellent privileges (I call them the OLD privileges: family, kids, a male breadwinner). Feminism promised them to acquire NEW privileges (exciting career, money, casual sex with hot alpha men in their twenties, divorce with alimony and child support).
Women got along because they thought they would end up enjoying all the OLD privileges plus the NEW privileges. This is what the mantra “having it all” means. The thing worked for some decades, because of the inertia of the old system, that made men want to marry, even if the incentives were not there anymore.
But now women are discovering that, by acquiring the NEW privileges, they have unknowingly lost the OLD privileges (which is the thing they love most). Suddenly, it is harder and harder to get a husband to be a work slave. Women are desperate. They can’t live without the OLD privileges but they are not willing to give up the NEW privileges.
They are desperate and the only thing they know is to shame men (“man up”). But this is only a desperate measure and this is not working.
The solution will come with time, which is the better healer. After forty or sixty years of single motherhood, miserable life for women and social decay, new generations of young women will learn that the OLD privileges is what matters and these OLD privileges will be so rare that women will be willing to do anything and give up anything to get it. This will be the end of feminism.
But we won’t see this. Nowadays, women still harbor the hope of having the OLD with the NEW. As Clausewitz says, the purpose of a war is not to win battles, not to destroy the enemy, but to destroy the enemy’s hope and the willingness of the enemy to keep on fighting. Until hope is not destroyed, feminism won’t be beaten.
be desperate to get a male breadwinner and will be willing to give everything to get it. But we won’t see this: this is the future.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
86 
2
imnobody nailed it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
3
imnobody May 23, 2011 at 07:53
Yes……there is NO possibility that these women will be able to give up their privileges.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
2
All these fancy predictions about the future of marriage leave out the fact of Islam’s advance in the West. The future of marriage, like the future of many things, is Islamic. We free people of the West gave up our liberty, stupidly, first to Marx, and now that that’s coming to an end, and we’ve used up much of our social capital, the Muslims can come in and take over. Remember that countries like Turkey used to be Greek and Christian.
Predictions about marriage assume that we are more powerful and in better shape than we really are.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
2
imnobody
But now women are discovering that, by acquiring the NEW privileges, they have unknowingly lost the OLD privileges (which is the thing they love most). Suddenly, it is harder and harder to get a husband to be a work slave. Women are desperate. They can’t live without the OLD privileges but they are not willing to give up the NEW privileges.
This is a very good description of the situation, and it can be considered as a variant on the old “monkey trap”. The story goes like this:
Take a coconut and hollow it out. Cut a hole in the side large enough that a monkey can slip its hand in, but too small for a monkey to pull its fist back out. Put some food object that a monkey would want inside. Tie the coconut shell stoutly to a tree or post hammered into the ground.
Soon, along comes a monkey, and sees the food inside the coconut shell; reaching in, the monkey grabs the bait. But the hole is too small for the monkey to pull its bait-filled fist back out. No matter how hard the monkey tries, it can’t get its fist pulled back out. Uh-oh, here comes a hunter with a spear…
The solution to the problem is obvious to us: just let go of that tasty treat, and run away up a tree. But to a greedy monkey, there is no solution, because to let go of the bait is literally unthinkable. So no matter how much the monkey wants to run away, it cannot do so, because it won’t let go of what it has grabbed hold of, even to save its own skin.
The parallels to modern women are obvious, as imnobody has made quite clear above.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
2
Mizz Hernowits points out the trend, but is still asking the question.
She would have been well advised to interview a few regulars here, (if she could manage to look past the horrific misogyny!). My impression of her is that she’s not rigid in her beliefs, but open to having her mind changed. Like most NYC elitist liberals, she needs to get out of the city more often and talk to other people.
She’s an observer who wants to understand, and while she misses the mark a bit here and there, she at least will say what most never would. I respect her for trying. Intellectual/feminists with sons start questioning sooner or later.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
6
A similar “where have all the good men gone?” type of article from „nationally syndicated columnist” Betsy Hart:
http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/hart/5204546-417/dearth-of-manly-menwho-are-gentlemen.html
http://www.betsysblog.com/wordpress/about-betsy/
Just read it carefully. It can be summed up thus: „maybe it was a mistake to drain masculinity out of young boys because masculine men are needed as unpaid security guards and the armed assassins of our female-friendly federal government, plus they have been women’s useful idiots for centuries”.
Another recent article about feminist regrets:
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/05/women-lie–anonymous/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
1
The Future?
Islam will not be a majority-win in the West (US) because it is imcompatible with 90% of Americans now and even 50 years from now. However!! I daresay we’ll see a greater “war” with Islamic interests and nations later on as time goes by and eathrbound resources dwindle. A feminist-oriented POLICE STATE safety-patrol will be graduated in the US in the name of “safety for women and children” then a backlash by men who won’t take that much crap….then Susie Sucksalot will surely be in a tight spot….maybe drafted UN “peacekeppers” will do her bidding? LOL
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
5
@Oddsock:
Thanks for posting that interview with Sue Hindmarsh.
I was going to post it again today just to emphasize how important it is to listen to it.
It is long (1.25 hrs) and worth EVERY MINUTE of listening time.
I have run through it four times so far: I pick up something new every time.
This is DEFINITELY A MUST specially for young and nubile men.
I just hope that each of you guys will take the time to listen to it carefully.
I have been exposing some of the thoughts Sue Hindmarsh expressed in this podcast. Get it from the horse’s mouth: a woman who claims to be the ONLY true feminist in the world. She lays it down for you flat out like an open book.
Zubati’s performance is not bad either, but it’s Sue’s comments that give this podcast all its meaning.
A gem.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
About the sperm/egg economic analysis, this was true but no longer. There is now an abundance of both sperm and eggs. I don’t know anyone who wanted a child that couldn’t get an egg for less than a used Chevy.
Women no longer reproduce in the West, and neither do men. I only used one of the many millions I have produced in my lifetime, and my ex used one of her thousands, no real difference.
I agree with Peter and Alcuin. In the near future we will be like Eastern Europe with women paying men to stay home, hang out, and produce one child with them.
Then, in the long run, Islam will over run us. It a demographic fact.
We are already seeing the political reality with Obama beginning to pressure Isreal to make concessions. The powerful in the US see the writing on the wall.
Mostafa and his three wives are producing 15 children, Kay Hymenhurtz and her wet leaf husband are producing two and one is a raving feminist, the other a wet leaf like his father. They will not be fruitful and multiply.
The religeon of death, feminism, will take Isreal as her first victim. The US, as we know it, will follow closely behind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
5
Höllenhund May 23, 2011 at 08:43
Wah, wah…were have all the gentlemen gone?
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Women are born with approximately 400 eggs—nowhere near “thousands”.
But your larger point is correct—modern technology and a radical change in cultural values have rendered the “eggs = expensive, sperm = cheap” paradigm pretty much obsolete.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
I’ve read that 90% of those 400 eggs die off before the woman reaches 30 years of age. I don’t have the link though, I think it was posted at Social Pathologist.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Well dragnet, if your going to be picky:
“Women are born with approximately two million eggs in their ovaries, but about eleven thousand of them die every month prior to puberty. As a teenager, a woman has only three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand remaining eggs, and from that point on, approximately one thousand eggs are destined to die each month.”
http://www.infertile.com/brochures/biological_clock04.htm
And your right, when only uses one or at most three, it doesn’t matter. My point is you can’t say that the number of eggs is limiting.
The limiting factor is the big organ on the top. Womens brains have been perverted and are now as reproductively useful as that of a unich.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
@ Single Dad
Hymenhurtz, lol. That bitch walked right into that one.
Anyhow, yeah, why don’t men (and ONLY men) redefine what women are supposed to be like, so this bitch (pretty much par for the course among Jewish American women) can get a sip of her own medicine.
Come to New York (even upstate), where at least 90% of Jewish women here are like Kay Hasnowit, and it infects non-Jewish women.
(I will not use the word Gentile for non-Jews as Mormons, who are one of the most disrespected faiths in New York, also use Gentile, but for non-Mormons. Although BYU basketball standout Jimmer Fredette is from upstate New York, in New York “political correctness” does not go in the direction of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Quiverfull, and several other religions. I guess there’s PC, and then there’s real PC.)
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
Höllenhund:
I agree with you that feminists, conservatives, and liberals have an “agenda” complete with ominous scare-quotes. I would disagree about traditionalists, except that their agenda is to attempt to restore a right order to the world—or at least their world.
Traditionalists “consider themselves justifies and empowered to tell men how they should behave” because they are merely telling men: “This is what you have been for thousands of years”. (Incidentally, traditionalists tend to spend more time telling women how they should behave, though the line is the same mutatis mutandis.) In the same way that they might say to a monkey: “This is what you do: you swing on trees and eat bananas”; or to a tree: “You grow tall and produce leaves and fruit”; or to a woman: “You find a mate, take care of him, and rear the children he begets from you.”
“Tradition” means that which has been handed down from previous generations. Men do take wives and father children on them, which they then support. This isn’t some “traditionalist” fantasy cooked up in the last fifty years as a response to feminism. It is what male humans do and what many male animals do. It is in accordance with human nature as it is subdivided into the masculine and feminine variety.
So, yes, traditionalists are trying to push an agenda, but it is to live in accordance with human nature. All they’re (we’re) saying is: “Life is hard. Men and women toil and suffer. However, it is in keeping with their nature that they toil and suffer together (sometimes because of each other!) while offering each other some consolation. The primary benefit of this union is to produce a society in which all people might work together to promote the common good of all.”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Look at history. Did people of the past live easier lives? No. Were they happy? Probably at times. Did wives prepare and keep a home for their husbands and children? Yes. Did husbands/fathers rule over their families? Yes. Were children taken away from fathers? No. Did wives undermine their husbands and their husbands’ relationships with their children? No. Was society reasonably well-structured with different people playing their variegated and proper roles? Definitely.
So, don’t knock traditionalists who tend to have men’s interests at heart. What we are clinging to and promoting and living in our own lives is not the amazing Willy Wonka happy candy. But guess what, life isn’t really all that happy. There might be moments of happiness, but there is a lot of toil. Is it more fun to nail hot twenty-four-year-old women five nights a week? Undoubtedly. But men have traditionally been interested in building things up, striving for them, struggling and fighting for them, and even dying for them. You might not like this. That’s fine. But don’t pretend that those who promote a more traditional life are just selling snake oil. We’re simply saying: “This is what man is (and has been for thousands of years). This is what he does. This is how it worked. Let’s go back to it.”
By the way, I know that many traditional men are sympathetic to the MRA community. I certainly am. Having returned to the Spearhead after about a year’s hiatus, I would say that one thing I have noticed is a hardening of the site against traditionally minded men. Might I venture this observation:
MRAs and traditionalist men (let’s call them TMs) want the same things: the restoration of sanity in relations between the sexes; a return of women and men to their proper places; a society of good families. MRAs have either tried to achieve this and have failed or have not tried to do this and have failed (nor am I saying that they were at fault for their failure—some were and some were not). TMs have tried and are having some measure of success. Religion, of course, plays an absolutely essential role in the success of the latter. TMs opt for fight; MRAs (esp. in the MGTOW variety) opt for flight.
Now, everyone can click the dislike button (in my opinion, a rather ridiculous innovation since I was last here) and feel vindicated.
Hot debate. What do you think?
34 
30
@ Antiphon:
“MRAs opt for flight.”
I should note that this is not intended as shaming language. Given the cultural and legal climate of the day, I don’t think marriage is for most men. I seem to recall that the Elusive Wapiti (if memory serves) said something along these lines recently in a comment to another post. I think it is wise for many men to avoid marriage and women all together.
I was merely trying to suggest in my comment above that TMs and MRAs are working together towards some of the same goals (or should be), though by different roads.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
19
@ Single Dad
The number of eggs is somewhat limiting—of those 2 million follicles produced at birth, only 400 ever mature to the point of viability.
But we agree on the larger point
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
“MRAs have either tried to achieve this and have failed or have not tried to do this and have failed “…” TMs have tried and are having some measure of success. Religion, of course, plays an absolutely essential role in the success of the latter. TMs opt for fight; MRAs (esp. in the MGTOW variety) opt for flight.”
This sounds EXACTLY the wrong way round to me.
If TMs are fighting and having some measure of success…why are churches widely seen as catastrophically overrun with feminists and manginas? Read back in the recent archives, you won’t find anybody saying anything except that churches are pretty much feminist institutions.
Also,
“This is what man is (and has been for thousands of years). This is what he does. This is how it worked. Let’s go back to it.”
Those days are over, you cannot put the feminist back in the box (they demand at-least-equality). And until the legal side is corrected, marriage is for suckers. Any feminist demands the right to divorce “‘cos I’m unfulfilled an’ shit” and bingo, the guy is cooked.
Marriage 2.0 is for suckers
Marriage 1.0 is a) gone and b) was a yoke for suckers anyway
Marriage 3.0 requires feminists to give up their entitlements
And one final thing, I am NOT interested in your religion (or any other). It amounts to just another bunch of patronising bastards telling me how to live my life – that’s gone too.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
5
So Antiphon you and TM’s have nothing to offer us other than the old, we’re born that way and the characature of relationships that lead to 90% of men dying on the Titanic and countless others in mines and factories supporting women that were actively working to create the machine of feminism with their free time, where mens lives where of less value than a piece of metal, and in exchange want to take the only thing we have gained, some small sliver of freedom.
No thank you, I trusted in the rules and recieved the shaft, I will never were that yolk again.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
2
What gets me is how most women view men in general as sperm-donors without factoring in their baby-daddy’s GENES in the equation! Its as if Susie and Frannie think the sperm kick starts the gestation with only THEIR genes in the mix! Then they wonder why later on the dysgenic brat is giving them such a hard time when she failed to consider the “father” genes and whetehr they might be a good or bad thing. Epic Fail once again Susie!
Now go get you a banana smoothie and think about it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
3
“So, don’t knock traditionalists who tend to have men’s interests at heart.”
Well, I wouldn’t except that I don’t find traditionalists to be very interested in:
a) reality (marriage 2.0 is death for men). But hey get those suckers married, I mean it could work.
b) listening to anybody else’s idea of what their interests might be. I am not interested in pedestalising women and this seems to be an implicit part of traditionalism.
With regards b), I find it very odd how hard it is to get a tradcon to admit that women have any serious faults. e.g. fra, child theft, divorce rape usually end up being problems created by men.
I can’t see how, but that’s how it usually works AFAICS.
Maybe you’re different, I hope so, but blind reliance on faith over reality is not a way forward that I can see working out.
I realise that in the US you have different views on religion to here in the UK (I think Oddsock described the Church of England as basically an aetheist / agnostic institution), but wherever you live, try and live in reality.
p.s.
Please feel free to take back religion as a first step to correcting society, then I might take news of tradcon successes a little more seriously. I’d rather live in your idea of society than the current one, but both are far from ideal in my estimation (I won’t fight for religion). YMMV
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
2
“I was merely trying to suggest in my comment above that TMs and MRAs are working together towards some of the same goals (or should be), though by different roads.”
Something we agree on, best of like, see you in Nirvana
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
luck dammit best of luck
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
@ dragnet
I see your point, in this reference it says that about 400 eggs are actually released. A similar comparison would be the numbers of sperm that end up in the female reproductive tract, in the fallopian tube, a much smaller number than the total produced but far in excess of those that end up as actual babies, average down to only 0.94 per family of two adults:
http://www.drstandley.com/bodysystems_femalerepro.shtml
http://surveysez.com/joomla/index.php/lifestyle/104-children-per-household.html
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
20 
41
Damn, I must have let my membership in the Patriarchy (TM) expire, I didn’t get the memo that we are in charge and that women don’t die 7 years later than men on average.
I have to check my email more often.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
2
Antiphon,
Good comments. I would probably call myself a traditionalist in the sense that I recognize that traditional lifeways are more balanced and more in harmony with human nature.
The only problem with those lifeways, at the moment, is that I really don’t see how we can get from B to A within the current system. Simply living that way and pretending everything is going to work like it did 150 years ago is only going to be a workable solution for a minority of men, who are able to find and connect with the minority of women who are willing to play along.
The “opt out” strategy is a loser for sustaining a civilization, but if you start talking about breaking what we have, and keeping some new version of A as a long term ideal, then the two merge.
The author of the book in question seems to recognize that women are going to have to deal with the fact that their careers are in conflict with biological imperatives:
The thing is, no one is willing to take or even really seriously suggest (on a public policy scale) the changes that would be necessary to bring social order into harmony with natural order. She seems to throw up her hands and hope that someone figures it out.
“Not all women, neither then nor now, support feminism. Also remember that the true driving force of feminism had to be men, because they had the political power.”
Hell on earth! Not only is it not the fault of women, it is actually the fault of men! Who da thunk it?
And not a word of blame on women in your entire set of posts.
Never mind a reality gap, you guys have a reality Grand Canyon
Get a grip
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
40
Gendeau:
Yes, feminism is–at least institutionally–the fault of men. Are you blind?
When women were pressing for the vote, who gave it to them? They didn’t vote it in for themselves, did they? Who held political power in the 19th and 20th centuries? Women? Were they presidents/prime ministers/senators/members of parliament/etc.?
When women began to enter the workforce during the 20th century, who hired them? All those female factory owners? Who controlled the economy and the means of production, women?
When women began the rather rapid march to dominate college admissions, who let them in? When all-male colleges and universities began to admit women, whose responsibility was that? All those female presidents and regents at Harvard, Oxford, etc.?
When women wanted to stop having children so they could become like unto men, who gave them the means? Did a woman invent the birth control pill? Who funded Margaret Sanger, et al., a bunch of wealthy industrialist women?
When women wanted to begin dressing like men, who made the clothes, all those famous female designers? Name one besides Coco Chanel.
When no-fault divorce was introduced in California, who signed the legislation, a female governor (err…governess)? No, Ronald Reagan, Mr. Conservative Himself.
Yes, Gendeau, you need to wake up. Men controlled society politically, economically, intellectually, and in every other way. And yet, and yet, feminism came to the world. Who in hell’s fault was it?
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
36
Ken May 23, 2011 at 08:46
“….then Susie Sucksalot will surely be in a tight spot….maybe drafted UN “peacekeppers” will do her bidding?”
Can she look forward to being raped by the UN “peacekeepers”. Nope. Those guys like them real young.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Gendeau:
Not a word of blame for women? No, because it wasn’t relevant to my points. I happen not to pedestalize women. I think that women are vicious and need to be kept in line. I think that women are less rational than men. I think that their proper role is a subordinate role, private rather than public. Feminism has taken the bridles off and society has been wrecked by them and their male (gasp) enablers.
Women who reject all this nonsense, however, and return to their rightful subordinate place do deserve praise. I think very highly of good wives and mothers. Indeed, my family would not function without the wisdom and self-sacrifice of my wife. I cannot praise her highly enough, but it is because she has come to learn her place and accepts it. Only in this way can she contribute to the common good. Anyone who contributes to the common good deserves praise in my view. Incidentally, I think much more highly of men with good wives than the women themselves, because I know that more often than not the wife has learned her place from her husband. He is the one primarily responsible for the harmony of the family.
Pedestalizing is, I gather, the uncritical bestowal of praise on a class of individuals, in this case women, irrespective of their merit. It suggests a blindness to their faults and weaknesses–indeed, a state in which one cannot even imagine that they do have faults or weaknesses.
I must say that I do not do this. Anyone trying to live in a correctly ordered marriage will leave the pedestalizing tendency behind real quickly. Women, like anyone, are subject to the effects of original sin. Only a fool would think otherwise.
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
27
“She seems to throw up her hands and hope that someone figures it out.”
Her book is not half as important as the responses she received from it. Every interview she talks about her Inbox being filled with anger and resentment from both men and women, but mostly men. These responses from outside her cloistered sphere of NYC academia really shocked her.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that after 50 years of fomenting hate against the male half, men are starting to hate back. This is a rather new development and elitists like Mizz Hyphentitz can’t process it, because doing so betrays sacrosanct feminist dogma.
I get the impression she’s had to re-think alot of what she wrote.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
1
singledad:
“I must have let my membership in the Patriarchy (TM) expire, I didn’t get the memo that we are in charge and that women don’t die 7 years later than men on average.”
Ha, ha (really–I can appreciate humor even when, or perhaps esp. when it is directed against me).
On a more serious note. Yes, of course, life expectancy has changed. Indeed, women have always had a higher expectancy with a dip during childbearing years. This is nature. I think it is to allow men to go to their reward and enjoy it for a few years before their wife shows up.
As for being in charge, yes, men are in charge. Even now the only thing that stands in their way is a set of laws and recent social expectations that deny their authority. But laws and social expectations are only the things of men, not of God or Nature (human: masculine and feminine).
Women really do want to be ruled. Some of the most disastrous marriages that I have known resulted from a hard woman who needed to be mastered, but whose husband didn’t/wouldn’t/couldn’t do it. Contrariwise, the happiest marriages I have seen–and I have seen many–had a husband who recognized that authority was his and he couldn’t shirk this responsibility. Indeed, I’ve even known women who recognized that they needed to be subordinated and helped their husband to be more authoritative.
Men are in charge–we just need to have the courage to fight the hydra. (It helps, of course, to find a woman that has not been too damaged by modern nonsense–not always an easy find.)
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
22
@ Antiphon
I think we can agree that men are in charge of themselves and should take care of themselves, no one else will.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
0
Jack:
Thank you for your kind words. I have long admired your writings.
“Simply living that way and pretending everything is going to work like it did 150 years ago is only going to be a workable solution for a minority of men, who are able to find and connect with the minority of women who are willing to play along.”
Very true. I try to live as traditionally as possible, but there is a lot of slippage. What men today can best hope to do is to recapture the spirit of tradition while fitting it to the particular accidents of their own day. There are two non-negotiables: no contraception and no career. I prefer that my wife dress like a lady (i.e. no trousers) and she does when we are out together and generally does so in public even when I am not there. It is also good for her to cook, etc. These latter things are important, but there can be some slippage without going off the brink into feminism.
How do we get there? And who can do it? Religion is the main key. I know that is not popular here, and that is fine. I’m not here to convert anyone. I am merely saying that a traditionally religious woman and man will have a better shot at this than most others. Does that mean that religious women are all docile as lambs? No. But they are “hardwired” to accept their natural place. Men need to accept that marriage will be hard, but if they can find the right woman, it need not be a failure.
“The “opt out” strategy is a loser for sustaining a civilization, but if you start talking about breaking what we have, and keeping some new version of A as a long term ideal, then the two merge”
I couldn’t agree more. Burn, baby, burn!
“The author of the book in question seems to recognize that women are going to have to deal with the fact that their careers are in conflict with biological imperatives.”
Yep. And I think that many are, at least in America. Or at least among religious women in America.
“The thing is, no one is willing to take or even really seriously suggest (on a public policy scale) the changes that would be necessary to bring social order into harmony with natural order.”
Despite their many flaws, the Catholic bishops in America are starting to get a little stronger on the Church’s perennial condemnation of birth control. The problem is that many in the hierarchy are still feminist-sympathizers and do not yet see how Catholic Tradition and feminism are incompatible. The good thing is that most real Catholics (whether conservative or traditional for those who know the distinction) are adopting the Church’s true teaching. Is this a quick fix for society? No. But it is a long-term solution and it is going to take a long time to reverse Liberalism and all her spawn including feminism.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
25
If women want men to man up, they should woman up first and go back to kitchen. It is either traditional roles for everyone or none. That should be our standard reply.
Enough is enough! (I stole that slogan from slutwalk, I hope they don’t mind)
Those c*nts who at the age of 23 wanted to “enjoy life” and ride the cock-carousel are now at 33 and angry that none looks at them anymore and none proposes them. Well that’s too bad, until they find a way to turn back the clock 10 years and change their attitudes I don’t see why anyone below the age of 43 should really care about them.
As for Hymowitz, I think we had enough of that judeofeminist troll already
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
5
Maaldweb:
I totally agree. This is what I have been driving at. There is a complementary aspect to traditional roles for the sexes. You cannot have one without the other.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
SingleDad
No thank you, I trusted in the rules and recieved the shaft, I will never were that yolk again.
Hear hear. Another gem
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
http://educate-yourself.org/ps/psrcresmokestackshawaii31jul01.shtml
Apparently the crematory facility in Hawaii is becoming common knowledge. I don’t think going our own way is gong to be enough.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Some tradcon wrote:
Yes, feminism is–at least institutionally–the fault of men. Are you blind?
Nope. I’m well aware of who gave feminism power. But apparently you aren’t.
When women were pressing for the vote, who gave it to them? They didn’t vote it in for themselves, did they? Who held political power in the 19th and 20th centuries? Women? Were they presidents/prime ministers/senators/members of parliament/etc.?
Traditional, conservative, men gave women the vote. Because traditional, conservative men of the Victorian era pedestalized women to an insane degree. In the US, one of the most common arguments for extending the voting franchise to women was the superior morality of women. Since women were more moral than men, naturally giving them the right to vote would clean up politics in a short time.
How’s that worked out for us, eh? By the way, in Weimar, Germany the voting bloc that reliably voted for the National Socialist All German Party (NSDAP or NAZI party) was women under the age of 30. There’s your “more moral” women at work.
When women began to enter the workforce during the 20th century, who hired them? All those female factory owners? Who controlled the economy and the means of production, women?
Nice example of the apex fallacy. Like feminists, tradcons can never seem to sort out the fact that while the majority of CEO’s are men, the majority of men are not CEO’s.
And, of course, those industrialists were good, churchgoing, traditional conservatives.
When women began the rather rapid march to dominate college admissions, who let them in?
Traditional, conservative college presidents.
When all-male colleges and universities began to admit women, whose responsibility was that?
Feminists, aided by substantial amounts of money from the Ford Foundation and other groups. Of course, the white-knighting traditional, conservative judges who ruled that single-sex universities were bad played their role as well.
All those female presidents and regents at Harvard, Oxford, etc.?
No, all those traditional, conservative presidents, regents, etc.
When women wanted to stop having children so they could become like unto men, who gave them the means?
Margaret Sanger and her ilk.
Did a woman invent the birth control pill? Who funded Margaret Sanger, et al., a bunch of wealthy industrialist women?
No, Sanger could always count on money from traditional, conservative men because her campaign was largely started to wipe out “inferior genes” from the US.
When women wanted to begin dressing like men, who made the clothes, all those famous female designers? Name one besides Coco Chanel.
Did any traditional, conservative men make any effort to stop them?
When no-fault divorce was introduced in California, who signed the legislation, a female governor (err…governess)? No, Ronald Reagan, Mr. Conservative Himself.
Thanks for making my point easy. That’s right, a traditional, conservative governor signed the first men’s-fault divorce law. He’s one of yours.
Yes, Gendeau, you need to wake up. Men controlled society politically, economically, intellectually, and in every other way. And yet, and yet, feminism came to the world. Who in hell’s fault was it?
Traditional, conservative men, just like you.
So basically, your group has screwed up badly for the last 100+ years, over and over and over again. Every time women have demanded something, screeching from the pedestals that tradcons put women on, you lot have handed it to them.
And now you say you have The Big Solution to a problem that your predecessors created? Having caved in to feminism for generations, suddenly you tradcons are somehow going to grow a pair, and fix everything by magic? How’s that going to work? And more to the point, why in the world should anyone trust you at this late date?
Tell you what. Never mind rolling back Marriage 2.0 and all its details (men’s-fault divorce, anti-family court, chilimony, false DV, false rape, and all the rest) that you tradcons helped to create. Never mind rolling back AA, that you tradcons helped create.
Tell me where you have taken back a church. People invite me to churches from time to time, and without fail I find a feminized operation with some old eunuch propped up for show. I’ve seen it in Catholic churches. I’ve seen it in Protestant churches. I’ve seen it in Reform synagogues.
You tradcons take back religion, and we’ll talk. If you can’t take back your own house, you clearly have no chance at anything bigger.
Oh, and PS: It wasn’t “men” who made feminism happen. It was some men, and they were just about all tradcons. Just in case you didn’t get my message above.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
5
Yes, it’s exactly an attempt to bully men for others’ benefit. Cloaked in shaming language as it is, I think many men didn’t immediately recognize it as the bullying tactic that it is. Were it obvious bullying, most men would resist. But most men want to do the right thing, and shaming language often tricks naive men into giving of themselves in an attempt to make things right.
But I think more men are seeing through that. The deal that’s offered to them is lousy. It’s 99% stick and 1% carrot. And as men see other men get divorced and ruined through no great fault of their own, they realize that women and society don’t even follow through on the lousy terms of the lousy deal.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
1
Our resident tradcon doesn’t seem to interested in the plight of men, I hope he’s at least getting laid.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
2
Antiphon writes:
Traditionalists “consider themselves justifies and empowered to tell men how they should behave” because they are merely telling men: “This is what you have been for thousands of years”.
So what? Trad-cons have rolled over and peed on their tummies for any demands that women have made for over 100 years, too. So why should we trust you now?
(Incidentally, traditionalists tend to spend more time telling women how they should behave, though the line is the same mutatis mutandis.)
And where is this place that tradcons tell women how they should behave? It’s not on The View. It’s not on Facebook. It’s not on MSNBC. It’s not in any church, as far as I can tell.
Look, what you may do in the privacy of your own home is great for you, but it really doesn’t affect the rest of us. So if you’re going to argue that tradcons really do take their women “in hand” at home, my answer is basically “so what? Who cares?” because what you and your wife do has zero effect on the larger issues: marriage 2.0 (pushed for by feminists, created by tradcon legislators, defended by tradcon judges), false rape accusations, and so forth.
I’d really like to know where this land is that you tradcons inhabit, where men tell women how they are to behave, and women do it. Are there unicorns there, too?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
2
Meanwhile
Week of Rage: Spreads Worldwide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxcOyXnnN8s&feature=player_embedded
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Anonymous Reader – “And now you say you have The Big Solution to a problem that your predecessors created? Having caved in to feminism for generations, suddenly you tradcons are somehow going to grow a pair, and fix everything by magic? How’s that going to work? And more to the point, why in the world should anyone trust you at this late date?”
Arriving late to the party, I had wanted to take on this Antiphon‘s points (attacks, more like it); but you’ve already taken care of pointing out the painfully obvious that it seems TradCons just cannot see.
They don’t challenge women as to how they should behave, they placate them in hopes of keeping them in the Traditionalist fold. We get lots of false vibrato out of them about the “growing Traditionalist Movement”, yet they seem to operate more from the perspective of fearing that their women will abandon their cause unless they provide them with some “indulgences” (a.k.a. feminist derived empowerment).
They try to paint a nice pretty picture of why women should embrace Traditional lifestyles, but they seem deathly afraid to actually address the issue of why so many (young) women are making themselves unmarriageable, and certainly unworthy of the risk a man would have to take on in a marriage to them.
I’m beginning to look at them more and more as nothing more than moral cowards. They’ll come here and try to shame MRA’s for being like feminists (in trying to fight fire with fire, legislatively speaking), but they refuse to see that they are still just standing by and giving women what ever is being demanded. They are “anti-feminists” in much the same way as the Vichy French resisted the original Nazi.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
1
Traditionalists are beta-male providers. It’s that simple. They may be clued into a lot of things -conspiracies, hierarchies, ancient civilizations, theological and philosophical insights, etc. But you know what? They live to serve today’s women as best they can.
These men just don’t get it. They think feminism is Oprah Winfrey and Planned Parenthood. No, you morons, it’s women themselves that are hardwired a certain way that, in this society, is entirely against your interests as a man. Get used to it.
And given their strong online presence, you know these “traditionalists” look at naked chick pics/flicks every once and a while, be they married or single. So, I just can’t take ‘em seriously.
Read Oswald Spengler and Francis Parker Yockey, then read Esther Vilar and “The Book of Pook”. It’s over -facts rule the day, not ideals. Traditionalists can talk all day on their blogs, but they can’t resurrect dead historical forms -be they familial, governmental, or ecclesiastical. Life doesn’t work that way.
I’m talking to you, Latin Mass Catholic dorks, Vision Forum patriarchal-wannabes, Reformed Confederate Kinists, “theonomists” (lmao!), and other nerdy beta providers that think Laura Wood and Carmon Friedrich aren’t man-eaters.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
5
Good article, I think your last line sums it up the best. Almost all the modern delusions are held onto, not because people believe them, but because people know the inevitable conclusions that must be reached if they accept that they are wrong, and the courses of actions neccessitated by those conclusions are unacceptable to them.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Same shit, different wording. Should we all forgive Kay now, forget about everything and all live happily ever after?
She and her kind will deserve all they are going to get.
f6m6n6st
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
Exactly what does “Manning Up” mean?
Getting married? Wasting a crap load of money on a degree that’s basically a depreciating asset in today’s world because everyones rushing to attain one? Does manning up mean I give up my honor, dignity, and pride and become an obedient slave for society and Women?
I just don’t understand what manning up is, when I was 18 years old I was in a firefight in Kandahar, me and my buddies were pinned down against a sniper, I baited myself and ran out into the open so the sniper could take a shot at me, so my buddy could take a shot at him, was that man enough? When I was 19 I took a life and I saved a life, was that the point in my life where I manned up?
As a member of Generation Y, I simply DO NOT understand what manning up means. It’s a foreign concept to me.
Why should I get married? What’s in it for me? I can attain sex and companionship outside of marriage. Easily. I can cook, clean, and take care of myself. I can earn my own money. I feel that there is absolutely no incentive for me to get married. Do people get married for children? Last time I checked, you can have kids outside of marriage.
Should I man up for society? To become a wage slave for ungrateful and exploitive corporations? To become a slave for a narcissistic, frigid, neurotic Woman?
I simply don’t understand why the whole concept of manning up even exists in 2011, I thought Feminists knocked down the gender roles, which apparently have nothing to do with biology? I thought I was a blank slate and can do whatever I want and be free and liberated?
Where are the incentives for me to “Man Up”? What do I get out of manning up? Currently, as a “man-child”, I can get sex, companionship, 100% freedom and independence, and peace of mind. When I’m back home, I can play video games all day and get into fun activities with my buddies, smoke pot, get drunk, have copious amounts of sex with promiscuous Women, and bask in hedonism.
Why should I man up? The whole concept seems so sexist! Like all Men are supposed to act a certain way and be a certain way, or else we’re not Men! SEXIST! SEXIST! DAMN THIS OPPRESSIVE SEXIST REPRESSIVE EVIL SEXIST CIVILIZATION, I’M OFF TO GO BURN MY UNDERWEAR!!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
63 
3
Antiphon
By the way, I know that many traditional men are sympathetic to the MRA community. I certainly am. Having returned to the Spearhead after about a year’s hiatus, I would say that one thing I have noticed is a hardening of the site against traditionally minded men.
For myself, the reason is simple: you don’t offer us anything. You want us to continue to march into marriage 2.0 just like some World War One general sending another wave of riflemen against machineguns. You say you are sympathetic; that plus a couple of bucks buys me a cup of coffee. Tradcons cannot be relied upon to support legislative efforts, in my experience. Tradcons all seem to be carrying around a pedestal to put women on, in my experience.
To quote Zed, in the old days you say you want to return to, there was a stick and a carrot to motivate men, but nowadays the cry it “Gimme TWO STICKS!” and frankly, I don’t see tradcons doing a single thing about that.
Plus, as I’ve already pointed out, you are the group that had control of society 100 years ago; you are the people that gave the vote to women, caving in to your women’s demands. You are the people that did nothing as marriage 2.0 was developing, or you actively aided in its creation. I remember when VAWA was in the US Congress, there wasn’t any wall of tradcons standing against it, but there were more than a few in support of it. Got to protect the womenfolk, the weaker and more moral sex, right?
Might I venture this observation:
MRAs and traditionalist men (let’s call them TMs) want the same things: the restoration of sanity in relations between the sexes; a return of women and men to their proper places; a society of good families.
Sure, and a free unicorn that I can ride around on the rainbow, too. But in the mean time, a lot of men would like to see equal rights under the law. A lot of men would like to see mandatory paternity testing, so they can make an informed decision when their devoted, loyal, wife gives birth to some badboys child. A lot of men would like to see family court massively reformed, Affirmative Action scaled back, false rape accusations punished, and so forth and so on.
Guess what? None of that would bring about the 50′s Nirvana you say is just around the corner, if only enough men will sign up with tradcons. And guess what else? Any time a group of angry men try to push on any of the above, feminists will push back, and tradcons will either do nothing (except stand on the sidelines, wagging their fingers in disdain) or they will side with the feminists to defend the status quo.
MRAs have either tried to achieve this and have failed or have not tried to do this and have failed (nor am I saying that they were at fault for their failure—some were and some were not). TMs have tried and are having some measure of success.
Really. Ok, tell us all where tradcons are having a measure of success. I’ll list off objectives, and you tell us where you tradcons are having success.
* Marriage 2.0
* False rape accusations
* False DV accusations
* Affirmative Action
I’m eager to see where and how you’ve solved the above.
Religion, of course, plays an absolutely essential role in the success of the latter. TMs opt for fight; MRAs (esp. in the MGTOW variety) opt for flight.
Churchianity seems to be just another branch of feminism, to me. If you tradcons have taken back a church, please tell us all what and where it is. Because I get invited to churches from time to time. I’ve heard my share of shaming language from the preacher or priest, attacking men for not doing their duty. And I’ve heard my share of blanket praise of women from the same sources, too.
Put up your evidence. Prove you aren’t just blowing smoke.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
1
Superb analysis from ‘Dragnet’ above.
Thank you.
“As Obsidian likes to say, >>Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap<<.”
Yes, true.
BUT Mark my words, the soon to be with us safe, NON HORMONAL, ultra reliable male birth control pill will change all that.
Male sperm will rocket in value, and men's status as expendable will be very, very challenged indeed. I urge guys to get behind this and push.
However, I'm not sure most men have even heard of this development let alone pondered it's sociological significance for them.
Here's a link to spread the word – http://www.israel21c.org/201006238085/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Antiphon
Pedestalizing is, I gather, the uncritical bestowal of praise on a class of individuals, in this case women, irrespective of their merit. It suggests a blindness to their faults and weaknesses–indeed, a state in which one cannot even imagine that they do have faults or weaknesses.
That’s not a bad definition. I’m sure that other men have somewhat different definitions. Implicit in pedestalization is the notion that the person being pedestalized – almost always women – are certainly better, inherently better than the one doing the pedestalizing. The easy, and glaringly obvious, example is the Victorian era view of women. Women were widely regarded as more moral than men, especially when it came to sexual behavior. Women were widely regarded as pure vessels of superior morality, men were bestial, foul creatures possessed of vile desires.
It is worth noting that tradcons seem as a rule to be quite fond of the Victorians. I have seen sites that essentially wish for a return to that era.
The Victorian women took their moral superiority and created the temperance movement, which claimed that men were beastly because of too much strong drink. It is no accident that the US passed the Volstead Act (an Amendment to the Constitution that banned the sale of alcoholic beverages) and the Amendment that gave women the right to vote almost at the same time. The suffragettes were very often allies of the ban-the-booze movement.
And both groups of women were humored by whom?
I must say that I do not do this. Anyone trying to live in a correctly ordered marriage will leave the pedestalizing tendency behind real quickly. Women, like anyone, are subject to the effects of original sin. Only a fool would think otherwise.
Then trad-cons are by and large fools. Because it was tradcons who handed women the right to vote in 1919. It was tradcons who banned booze the same year. It was tradcons who claimed that women were so very much more moral than men that merely by voting, they would clean up politics.
It’s tradcons and feminists, in my experience, who get the most worked up over the applied psychology known as “Game”; perhaps because Game works with women as they really are, and both tradcons and feminists have their own versions of “women are better than men”.
Hope this clears up your confusion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
1
The Week of Rage video linked above includes footage of a UK courtroom being invaded and reclaimed by citizens citing rights under the Magna Carta. I don’t recall seeing that on the news . . . (or many of the other events discussed).
YouTube is apparently blocking the original clip in the UK at the request of the government. I couldn’t help but think of Peter A. N. Perhaps individuals living in the UK can still see a portion of the clip in the Week of Rage video.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
C-SPAN re-ran Hymowitz’s Harvard Club talk from ~2 months ago just yesterday AM, and I listened to it again just to get to the part where Lionel Tiger (in the audience) asks a question. Her many blind spots are obvious. While I haven’t myself read the book yet, what Jack says here fits almost perfectly with what one hears in the talk. Good work Mr. Donovan – you nailed it.
The swindle in Hymowitz’s basic premise has to do with that “the rise of women” part, because her complaint, and that of the rest of the “no good men” brigade, seems to be that the boys won’t drop their boy’s stuff to go play house with the girls and their dolls when they suddenly decide that’s what they want to do.
It really has nothing to do with women going to college and becoming CEOs or whatever, except insofar as they’re now occupying half the good bread-winning positions in lots of professional fields, but aren’t using their money to support a man and their children.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
1
Paradoxotaur
I had seen the video of the court room being invaded but it was soon blocked by youtube. The one that amazed me was the protests in Ireland. Not a word of it here in England. There is so much censorship going on these days it’s amazing. I am quite often shocked at how much information is being blocked from people in the USA and many other parts of the world.
For the record. A lot of the info you find within the PAN posts is actually quite true. There is an ever increasing number of people in the UK that are starting to challenge authority etc with similar info. This is why the UK government asked youtube to block the court room video and access to the lawful rebellion website. It would appear they are using the real Law and exposing the fraud. Interesting times indeed !
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
@Devildog
Your comments above hit the nail on the head. I wish Hymowitz could read it herself.
Gender roles were supposed to have been abolished freeing everyone to live their lives as they please, and then for her to say we must act a certain way in order to be real men is sheer hypocrisy.
Women have been given more choices than ever, delaying child-bearing to pursue careers, etc. But men have no other choice but to get a job and get married as usual? Your generation has been called the most programmed generation ever, yet I’m glad to see you breaking free of that programming.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
0
Rebel
@Oddsock:
“Thanks for posting that interview with Sue Hindmarsh.
I was going to post it again today just to emphasize how important it is to listen to it.”
No need to thank me mate. You found it. I just simply reposted it because I also believe, same as yourself, it is way to important and revealing interview to be forgotten about. A must listen for all guys. Well, those who really want to be awakened?
http://geniusrealms.com/reasoningshow/show10.htm
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@ Antiphon –
“On a more serious note. Yes, of course, life expectancy has changed. Indeed, women have always had a higher expectancy with a dip during childbearing years. This is nature. I think it is to allow men to go to their reward and enjoy it for a few years before their wife shows up.”.
Wrong.
The USA census from 1901 shows women living only 1 year more than men. By the 1970s the longevity gap was approximately 8 years. Therefore what you’re saying is not only wrong it also shows the gap isn’t a result of biology but life stresses.
Speaking of which, as someone formerly married but now a committed MGTOW I’ve never felt so stress free.
Consequently compared to being in harness (married) I expect to lie a good life and a whole lot longer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
MGTOW isn’t retreat.
Marriage is buying an assault rifle, loading it with bullets, handing it to a woman, and saying “Point it at me, but don’t shoot.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
0
DevilDog –
Pretty much, yeah–according to just about any pre-WWI version of manhood.
More manning up than I will ever probably do in my lifetime.
I’m going to quote the chapter of my book that I am working on:
These women and male feminists are just co-opting the language of the male group–language men use to prepare each other for dealing with high stress, life or death situations–and trying to bend it to their own agenda.
“Manning up” has always been about strength, courage and honor, and it has always been about status-seeking in male groups.
The rest is bullshit and noise.
Jack Donovan
“the “musty script” of a patriarchal system that no longer exists.”
With respect. Perhaps you need change that to;
the “musty script” of a patriarchal system that never existed ?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
I liked the Leykis interview, particularly the Hymowitz hampster spinning madly when asked by Tom to give a reason why men should marry (her foundational assumption). It was a festival of circular reasoning (It’s WONDERFUL! It’s so wonderful, I can only hint at how wonderful it is. If you’ve never experienced it, you just can’t imagine the wonderfulness you’re missing, and if you’ve never had that in your life, it’s because your wonderfullness finder is broken, and you just need to man-up and go get yourself a big steaming pile of the wonderfullness of marriage.) and unstated false assumptions (The problem is that men are attracted to attractive women. If men would just select unattractive women to marry, everything would be fine . . . because fat, old, ugly women are never unreasonable, self-absorbed, emotionally driven drama freaks. You child-men are the problem, now man-up and marry women you don’t find attractive!).
I, too, thought Tom Leykis went EZ on her. I have absolutely no interest of getting Am. women back into the kitchen or returning to some sort of mythical marital Eden that never existed. My father damn near worked himself to death after a lifetime of being fed blue pills. I wouldn’t want to trade my life for his.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
1
Women too–of all ages–exhibit their share (if the share is 95%) of infantile, short-time-horizon, self indulgent misbehavior that would put dwarf the puerility blamed on most of the “guys” cited in the books above!
We have a world, that, for starters, shows city after city promoting “slut walks” for females who can’t even control themselves, and who won’t even take responsibility for their behavior when they (or their daughters) are placed in direct physical danger! We have women abandoning their husbands and children on a whim, over little more than boredom, forcing divorce rates over 50% in many States, shattering the children’s lives,and bankrupting the men. We have seen decades of these vile harpies (and those who front for them and agree with them) blame men for everything from their own sexual frigidity to their own utter incompetence in the workplace– “glass ceiling blues” and “equal pay for equal work” (LOL!)– while these same types of women also demand endless attention to their issues and problems to the exclusion of men’s issues or concerns (such as breast cancer or AIDS when they have a decade-longer life expectancy than men) or–get this–rape and assault, when 80% of the violent crime is committed by men, AGAINST other men!
We all live in a world where, when a woman doesn’t get her way, no matter how inconvenient, expensive, or just plain impossible for everyone else, there has been hell to pay!
Let us look at more female selfish immaturity…
Breast feeding or exposure in public? How would WOMEN like it if men asserted their “rights” to dress (or undress) in any manner they pleased in front of them? To ask this is to answer it! Men complaining about issues of interests to US is called “whining”, but women complaining–over far more puerile and babyish issues–is a feminist “fight for justice”? I understand that there are even LAWS on the statutes books requiring others (especially men, to tolerate this public display of human(?) breastfeeding female dogs)! Okay, that last one was a bit “over-the-top” but I have a right to get in touch with my ‘feelings’ too, don’ t I? I could continue, but I think that I have proven my point! Male immaturity? It exists, but compared with what our society, especially its MEN, had to cope with from females, it is a very small point.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
Paradoxotaur- “give a reason why men should marry (her foundational assumption). It was a festival of circular reasoning (It’s WONDERFUL! It’s so wonderful, I can only hint at how wonderful it is. If you’ve never experienced it, you just can’t imagine the wonderfulness you’re missing”
In a nutshell, this is why most conservative women will never be a solid ally of men. They start from the premise that marriage is good, and marrying a woman is a prize for men. They say this, regardless of how corrupted modern women are, or what a risky decision marriage is. If they admit the failings of women/risks of marriage at all, they wave it off with “The man has to find a good woman.”
They are not seeing the reality on the ground, they are looking to support their fantasy. And they avoid the fundamental question like the plague – “How can women make marriage more attractive to men?” It’s a sign of how simple-minded the female gender is, that this escapes them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
oddsock –
Uh, no.
Stop defining Hymowitz as a conservative because she isn’t. She is a judeo-feminist troll which used the typical tactic of trotskyists called “entryism” to subvert the conservative movement from within. She joined conservative groups just to undermine them by promoting cultural marxism, misandry and feminism.
I don’t like conservatives since they are mostly fools who don’t understand that there IS NOTHING LEFT TO CONSERVE. But to call a Hymowitz a conservative is a gross misunderstanding.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
5
Only to set the record straight, the estrogen-driven version of Christianity that is taught in churches today IS NOT the real Christianity. Read the Bible and you will find constant admonishment about the evil nature of women (starting from Eve) or constant remindears that men are the bosses of the family and women should obey AND SUBMIT.
Jesus was an alpha male. She did what she wanted, she was a leader and never submitted to a woman. Of course, feminists can swallow that: this is why they invent silliness like Mary Magdalene being his wife and the first of his disciples.
In a PUA site, there was an interesting post called something like “Jesus, author of game” when it shows how Jesus applied negs to the women he knew. Too bad I can’t find the link.
On a different topic, socons and feminists are only different branches of the same movement: the pedestalization movement. See a complete explanation here:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/08/hybrid-feminism/#comment-63048
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
‘We have a world, that, for starters, shows city after city promoting “slut walks” for females who can’t even control themselves, and who won’t even take responsibility for their behavior when they (or their daughters) are placed in direct physical danger! We have women abandoning their husbands and children on a whim, over little more than boredom, forcing divorce rates over 50% in many States, shattering the children’s lives,and bankrupting the men.’
Well said, and there’s little ‘tradcon’ about any of that, is there?
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
Oops! I am sorry. I meant:
Jesus was an alpha male. HE did what she wanted, HE was a leader and never submitted to a woman.
I was doing some other things and you know English is not my strong point.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
“the uncomfortable truth is that youthful female careerism is closely intertwined with the growth of consumption for two reasons. First, working women make and spend a lot of money…”
This is absolutely true, they spend tons of money and save none. What happens when their career dies down and they saved nothing for retirement? Government as substitute husband.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
29
@ imnobody
When discussing feminized religeous institutions today, I think your freudian slip stands perfectly as is.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“@Young men.
Never forget the result in my case. 5% vs 95%.”
Let me tell you how it will be. It’s one for you, nineteen for me…
“The Taxman” by The Beatles
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
vp046 –
I wish it were that easy to make money as a writer.
A men’s movement that traffics in boilerplate knee-jerk responses, instead of evaluating the actual material, is as stupid and hysterical as feminism.
I read the book. It wasn’t great, and I wouldn’t consider her an ally by any stretch of the imagination, but it had some good bits and was more sympathetic than a lot of other feminist crap I’ve forced myself to read.
I’m going through my quotes for other reasons, so here’s another from her book, from a paragraph criticizing feminist Betty Friedan:
@SingleDad
Haha. You are right. Nowadays, churchs are the height of the matriarchy. Feminists even tried to change God from father into mother but this is the only thing they didn’t achieve
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
0
One more thing, I’m reminded of something that arose in comments over at Dalrock’s blog, and that is the fact that far too many trad-cons share the prejudice of feminism, “Most Men Are Like That”. So when, for example, the Bradley amendment was proposed in the 1980′s, I doubt very many trad cons opposed it, because they shared with feminists the notion that any man who failed to meet every penny of whatever financial burden anti-Family court judges laid on him was clearly a “deadbeat dad”. Yeah, some were and are. And some were hit by vindictive women for all they were / are worth, too.
Ditto the Violence Against Women Act of the mid 1990′s. There was no upsurge of trad cons against this, even though it included and still includes pretty good Federal funding for feminist propagandizing via the “women’s shelter”. (There are no “men’s shelters”. They are not needed. No women are like that. And if they existed, why, Real Men(TM) know how to deal with crazed women waving knives around, right? Sure. )
So it has gone with every feminist advance. Because they can always tug on the heartstrings of trad-cons, both women and men, who “know” that by golly, Most Men Are Like That (for some evil “that”), at the very least there won’t be substantial opposition, and all too often is active assistance from the trad cons in support of the feminists – but just one time, just on this one issue, sure.
And the truly enraging thing is this: it’s simply not true. Most men are not rapists. Most fathers are not abusers. Most divorced fathers are not deadbeats. Most men are not into sexually hassling women on the job.
Most men are not what feminism teaches they are. And most men are not what, apparently, too many trad-cons believe them to be. So there is no logical reason for the trad-cons to have joined in with the feminists over and over again for years.
But they did. And who is to say they won’t do it again?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
Traditional marriage only really works if both parities understand the basic principles of sacrificing one’s self for the better of another.
My husband “provides” me and our children with all the traditional things a man provides–that’s his sacrifice.
I “provide” my husband and children all the things the traditional things a woman provides–my sacrifice. (And yes, that includes sex–though, it’s not a sacrifice by any means. It’s one of life’s great pleasures.)
In theory, the way it works is I give up my wants and desires, place them into my husband’s hands and trust him to take care of me on all levels: physically and emotionally. This is supposed to enable him to lead the family in a positive direction because I am not at war with him. I meet his physical and emotional needs and therefore he has no need to seek fulfillment for those needs outside of the relationship.
The theory does works.
If one takes out religion from a traditional marriage, it still works. It’s not a concept most people want to hear–especially me-centric woman of the modern era–but the union of a man and woman can be beautiful and harmonious if BOTH clearly understand the principals behind it. Many cultures and many religions try to explain why it works, but what it comes down to is the survival of the fittest. Men cannot gestate their own offspring. Woman cannot support their own offspring while PROPERLY caring for them, and NEED a support system. By paring up they produce a safer and more stable environment for their offspring to grow up and perpetuate their genes.
Nature, God, evolution, whatever you want to call it, provided the answer—the pair bond.
Modern society is f***ed up. The pair bond is under attack. Traditionalist understand the need to salvage it, but don’t understand the dynamic of how the human pair bond works. Men are still pandering to woman’s emotional whims, while woman are still willing to accept false honor from men who are operating on a lie built by feminists. Women degrade real womanhood every day and men reward them by still giving into their every childish wish.
We are a society of children. Men have no reason to grow up because the “reward” is now a death trap. Women have no reason to grow up because man-boys enable them to remain children so there is free access to possible sex.
Let the pendulum of the war of the sexes swing the other way and we’re still going to have a society full of useless me-centric children.
An adult “sucks it up”, “deals with it” and “gets the job done.”
Laws need to be changed. Injustices need to be corrected. Equality needs to be debunked. Men’s issues should be the focal point because you guys really let yourselves be screwed over by feminism.
Two generations of men gave their responsibilities to the government. Two generations of women have acted like children with an over indulgent government parent giving them everything they want.
Everyone needs to grow the hell up. Life is hard. Suck it up. Deal with the consequences of bad decisions. Be part of the solution and work to get the job done.
“First you get the women, then you’ve got the children, so follow the men” -Adolph Hitler
They have the women. They have the children. So follow the men…
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/FamilyIssues/Feminism/FeminismIsSocialism/FeminismIsSocialism.htm
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
8
Why are you even giving the time of day to this 60 yo Hymowitz yenta? She should just be ignored like those radio “psychologists” who have no idea what they’re talking about. Don’t give any of these wacky old females any attention or publicity.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
Can someone please tell this clueless Kay Hymowitz that it ain’t the same old song & dance anymore.
Anyone?
Yeah, the rules have changed a bit concerning that whole provider/protector thing, sweet-cheeks.
You women take and take and give almost nothing in return. You have your own resources now as well — and used almost exclusively to YOUR own benefit.
When was the last time you dropped a cool $50 at “Men’s Night” down the local pub?
Society is a bit less respectful towards the average man these days too. You would know this, of course, if you ever did anything other than push back whenever some man tried to tell you.
Gentlemen.
It any of you would be so kind, could you send this Kay Hymowitz a shiny gift wrapped friggin CLUE and tell her it ain’t 1970 anymore?
When you alter the equation you change the outcome as well.
Toil as a slave to serve the goddess? Not so much anymore, bitches.
MGTOW.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
1
It any of you would be so kind, could you send this Kay Hymowitz a shiny gift wrapped friggin CLUE and tell her it ain’t 1970 anymore?
She doesn’t have a clue today and didn’t back in 1970 either.
Personally I wish it was 1970 again because 90% of this misandry and anti male legislation didn’t exist. I might miss some technology but it’s also this technology that is being used against you. It was very easy to disappear and most things did not require any identification. You could fly, open safe deposit boxes, post office boxes etc with no ID and under any name and even checking accounts without providing a SS# because there was no interest to be reported to the IRS. Banks couldn’t communicate like today with computers so if you opened an account in another area no one would know about it. Driving licenses didn’t have photos or did you need a SS# to get one and states weren’t connected by computers so if your license was suspended in one place you could just a license in another. Drunk driving meant that you couldn’t stand up and even then a cop would let you go if you were right near your house, and no one complained about smoking because 90% of the people smoked lol Kids didn’t get arrested for trying to buy alcohol if they were under 18 and if a cop caught kids with alcohol he’d just pour it out and try to scare you a bit haha
DV? What’s that? If anyone called the cops about that there had better be a corpse there or they’d accuse you of wasting their time and making a false report. And if there was some violence the cops would just make the guy walk around outside until he cooled down or if he was drunk drop him at some friend’s house to sleep it off(or at the jail but would be let go when you looked sober)DA’s couldn’d prosecute a case unless the complainant wanted to press charges or compel a wife to testify.Divorces were all fault and if you wanted a divorce you had to prove grounds and in some places the only grounds were adultery. The good old days
Of course there were laws and serious offences were prosecuted but what was considered serious is not the same as today.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
1
“And one final thing, I am NOT interested in your religion (or any other). It amounts to just another bunch of patronising bastards telling me how to live my life – that’s gone too.” Gendeau
Good for you Gendeau! I well remember the knock-out brawl you had many posts back in which you stood up to a gang of trad-con bullies who tried to push you around for not seeing things their way. The statement that you now had a target on your back was a chilling reminder, if any were needed, that these types are not friends of freedom as you and I understand it. You can be sure their womenfolk were standing behind them, egging them on to give the little heathen what for.
Your response was the most ferociously clear-eyed defence of liberty I had seen in ages and you earned my everlasting respect because of it. Here you are again, fighting the good fight. Well done, sir!
I’m not sure if our American commenters quite realise that the whole trad-con world is quite alien to many British, Irish, Australian and Kiwi men (I am not sure of Canada). The closest I (an Aussie) can ever get to a trad-con experience are hazy memories of episodes of “Little House on the Prairie” and the mascara-abusing Tammy Faye Whats-her-name. Being a trad-con in my culture probably means that you have never drunk lite beer.
Australians just aren’t a spiritual people. In fact, it is considered the acme of bad taste to discuss religion at all. Historians have suggested that it has something to do with avoiding talk of damnation. Being a pack of criminals, it was best all round to just drop the subject. For example, my partner of 14 years is a committed Christian who attends church every Sunday (yeah I know, a gay Christian, go figure). I don’t know which church he goes to because I have never asked. I think he is vaguely aware that I am not a Christian, but he’s probably not sure. He’s never asked. My partner’s spiritual life is none of my business, nor mine, his. It’s a respect issue – a guy thing.
Pushing religious perspectives onto others will never be popular in my neck of the woods. Therefore, the whole trad-con ideal is a non-starter for that reason alone. Obviously, I respect those who have religious beliefs. But, like Gendeau, that respect had better be returned to those of us who don’t..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
“Perhaps she realizes the kind of changes that would be necessary, and doesn’t dare.”
Haven’t read all the comments here so forgive me, but I’m betting my money on this last sentence Jack At this point, women are beginning to recognize that men MAY be linked to the security they require to achieve their biological imperatives, but at this point things haven’t gotten ‘uncomfortable’ enough for them yet. She may have a few ideas as to why things are this way and sees that there is a storm approaching in the future, but why give up any benefits which could rectify the problem when doing so would undermine her position and that of NAW?
I’m also betting money that women will not relinquish their benefits in order to assist ‘child-men’ until those very same benefits carry with them severe and long lasting disadvantages.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
“no one complained about smoking because 90% of the people smoked”
I don’t smoke and I don’t endorse doing it. But dammit! Don’t you miss smoke filled rooms ? (pool halls, bars etc.) I can remember as a boy how the smoke from dad’s cigarettes would flow in loops and other patterns. I remember the sunbeams a smoke filled room would make from windows. Not defending smoking here but I can’t help but be nostalgic about this.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) said…
“I encourage ALL young men to refuse to go into the slavery of ‘wife and children’ while the family courts are so clearly a criminal enterprise.”
I agree.
Young men need to learn what marriage is really about
yikes!
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
antiphon
“Men controlled society politically, economically, intellectually, and in every other way. And yet, and yet, feminism came to the world.
Who in hell’s fault was it?”
The Alpha Beta Gamma principle.
Men were on slippery slope of lacking leverage regarding wimmins for centuries.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Skeptik May 23, 2011 at 16:04
“Speaking of which, as someone formerly married but now a committed MGTOW I’ve never felt so stress free.”
Let me go +1 on that. When you are clear of her and the chidren situation is decent, this is the number 1 effect of divorce.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I wanted to add an asterisk onto this, especially on the “easily” part.
You’re really making the older, classic “man shortage” argument, which itself is based on too many misperceptions to go into. Let’s just say it leads to inaccurate predictions.
In particular, there is not necessarily going to be a great pool for a given guy to fish in for young, available women when he gets to his 30s and 40s. It likely depends a great deal on where he is. I think urban areas might be the source of the myth, but don’t know for sure, as I live out in the provinces among the working classes.
I’m not taking Hymowitz’s side by any means, because I wouldn’t recommend any male even have sex without a signed and notarized consent form and without a lawyer present, much less get a girl pregnant or marry her.
But there’s a severe quality woman shortage here, and I suspect in many other places also, so any increase in the theoretical size of my dating/mating pool after getting into ones 30′s and 40′s is irrelevant. This is the part of the argument Hymowitz misses by essentially repeating the man shortage axiom that there are all these great women who are available, but the sorry-assed men in their vicinity just aren’t up to them in quality. It’s really the other way around in lots of places, I think.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
@Common Monster
Agreed. At least in the Western world there is a shortage of quality women. This is why I expatted.
When the topic of the man shortage is discussed (read: “whined”) by women, the same argument is used no matter whether the discussion is in a liberal web, in a conservative in a Christian web in a feminist web. It goes like this:
“Everywhere is the same [says the author, who is female]. I know lots of attractive, amazing, fabulous, interesting, smart and competent women in their thirties that cannot find any man to commit to them. I spoke to X who is a very attractive, nice, compassionate, interesting and successful woman (add “holy and devoted to the church” if it is a Christian site) and she told me: “I don’t know where all the man have gone. I would like to find some nice guy but it is impossible. Then I spoke to Y, who is a very attractive and very nice woman and she told me the same…yaddah, yaddah, yaddah”.
If you take this description at face value, you will believe that this woman lives in a place where all women are great catches and there are no men around. With this description, it is unbelievable that these amazing women cannot find a boyfriend. So you understand that the author is puzzled because you are.
Of course, this only shows that women are not to trust when it comes to describing reality, especially when . The reality is as follows:
“Everywhere is the same . I know lots of fat, ugly, bitchy, whorish, status-obsessed and narcissistic women who are as delusional as me so they think they are attractive, amazing, fabulous, interesting, smart and competent. I spoke to X who is a plain Jane and thinks that she is a queen and who has a crappy job in an office (but she thinks she is successful and a “career woman”) and she told me: “I don’t know where all the (wealthy and handsome) man have gone. I would like to find some rich alpha guy but it is impossible. Then I spoke to Y, who bitched about the same and…yaddah, yaddah, yaddah”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
Wow! I love what you did there. Going to be using that from now on when the topic comes up.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Team feminism appears to be exhausted of things to say by employing the use of the stand-by barometer often resorted to by girldom, ma-chur-i-ty, to try and score a point over an assumed adversary.
KH’s premise appears to be that, regardless of all else, all females always rise to the status of wise all-knowing entitities that epitomizes a standard of glory. That females are inherently developed, by and of themselves. Any informed critical examination of the modern fruits of feminism should lay that notion to rest.
First, gloss and ignore the conditions that prompt the adjusted behaviors of why the adversary acts as he does and then trot out an assumed moral standard as a shaming point to give the appearance of an assumed moral victory.
Being that men, through feminist lobbying, have been legislatively forced from the family, men’s critical role in the social development of children has led to the underdevelopment of both girls and boys. It can hardly be said that girls raised in the divorce culture, absent of father, somehow magically become the standard for adult behavior. Then there are the leaders, followers and practitioners of feminism themselves. Doubtful as well. Look at both word and action.
It could be said that young men are avoiding both the punitive modern outcome of divorce and the ones they would marry at the onset. What’s in it for young men to potentially have most of what he has worked for – career earnings, home and children – taken away by potentially equally immature females through feminist inspired state enforced social plunder.
Nice try, Kay. Your thesis may be good for book sales but comes up lacking here.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Team feminism appears to be exhausted of things to say by employing the use of the stand-by barometer often resorted to by girldom, ma-chur-i-ty, to try and score a point over an assumed adversary.
KH’s premise appears to be that, regardless of all else, all females always rise to the status of wise all-knowing entitities that epitomizes a standard of glory. That females are inherently developed, by and of themselves. Any informed critical examination of the modern fruits of feminism should lay that notion to rest.
First, gloss and ignore the conditions that prompt the adjusted behaviors of why the adversary acts as he does and then trot out an assumed moral standard as a shaming point to give the appearance of an assumed moral victory.
Being that men, through feminist lobbying, have been legislatively forced from the family, men’s critical role in the social development of children has led to the underdevelopment of both girls and boys. It can hardly be said that girls raised in the divorce culture, absent of father, somehow magically become the standard for adult behavior. Then there are the leaders, followers and practitioners of feminism themselves. Doubtful as well. Look at both word and action.
It could be said that young men are avoiding both the punitive modern outcome of divorce and the ones they would marry at the onset. What’s in it for young men to potentially have most of what he has worked for – career earnings, home and children – taken away by potentially equally immature females through feminist inspired state enforced social plunder.
Nice try, Kay. Your thesis may be good for book sales but comes up lacking around here.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Anonymous Reader:
“Traditional, conservative, men gave women the vote. Because traditional, conservative men of the Victorian era pedestalized women to an insane degree. In the US, one of the most common arguments for extending the voting franchise to women was the superior morality of women. Since women were more moral than men, naturally giving them the right to vote would clean up politics in a short time.”
Your understanding of history is a bit limited. America was founded on the principle of Liberty. America is a Liberal nation. It has never been anything but Liberal. Conservatives are Liberals in the mould of the Founding Fathers. “Liberals” in our own day are also Liberals, but radicals and blur off into various shades of Marxism. There has never been a very strong traditionalist view of the world in America, such as there was and is in Europe and esp. formerly Catholic nations, e.g. France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Austria, parts of Germany, and many countries of the former Soviet Bloc.
What is Liberalism? I have always turned to Don Felix Sarda y Salvany’s (Spanish priest and author of Liberalism is a Sin—text can be found online) definition:
1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.
2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.
3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.
4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.
In other words, the American ideal as refined by the French and enshrined in the so-called “Principles of 1789”. Now many of the “live free or die” types at the Spearhead will say that the first victories of Liberalism were good ones, namely the overthrow of altar and throne, i.e. the removal of the Catholic Church from the political realm and the breaking of the old European (and other) royal dynasties. I don’t agree, but I’ll grant you that to humor you.
But liberty is a totalizing notion. Once restraints have begun to be removed the very idea of restraints becomes anathema. If white, male, property holders are “free”, why shouldn’t black, male, property be “free”, too? Why shouldn’t women be “free”, too? Of course, freedom is a slippery—and ultimately meaningless notion—and so when people reject the idea and its implications an oppressive governing apparatus needs to be set up to enforce freedom and spread this blessing to those poor people who cannot recognize its good. Sound familiar? Yes, it’s America the first Liberal Empire.
Anything done by American politicians of any time period from today to 1776 has been the work of Liberals promoting Liberalism. Did they go to church? Of course, most of them were liberal protestants, who had bought into the social gospel and hated anything that smacked of Authority. (This notion goes back to Martin Luther, of course, and ultimately back to Satan’s “Non serviam”.)
Your lack of understanding of the forces that have shaped history over the past three centuries has led you into the erroneous belief that the politicians, college presidents, industrialists, etc. were “tradcons” as you call them. (Indeed, the very label “tradcon” shows how little you understand the philosophical divisions of the “Right.” A traditionalist is not a conservative—more on that in a subsequent comment.)
“So basically, your group has screwed up badly for the last 100+ years.”
No, for as I outlined above, the men in power over the last century have not been our group. Traditionalists have been mostly out of real power in the West for a couple of centuries, though at times they have exerted an influence on politics. Certain elements of the Front National in France are traditionalists. Certain elements in Petain’s France, Franco’s Spain, and Salazar’s Portugal were traditionalists. Action Francaise had a strong component of traditionalist support as did Codreanu’s group in Romania. Many other less famous groups could also be named, generally in Catholic countries. And, of course, the Catholic Church was the bulwark of traditionalism in the world, though as many have commented here much of the hierarchy has been taken over by Liberals.
“Thanks for making my point easy. That’s right, a traditional, conservative governor signed the first men’s-fault divorce law. He’s one of yours.”
Thanks for missing my point entirely. Anyone who thinks that Reagan is a traditionalist (or even a conservative by traditional American standards) is badly mistaken. Bush Jr. is not, Hannity is not, Chief Justice Roberts is not, Justices Scalia and Thomas and Alito aree not, Sarah Palin is decidedly(!) not. Indeed, I can think of very few well-known Americans who have been true traditionalists. It has largely been an “underground” movement in America precisely because the political soil in this country only grows varieties of Liberalism.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
14
Anonymous Reader:
“It is worth noting that tradcons seem as a rule to be quite fond of the Victorians.”
Most traditionalists that I know abhor the Victorians for their sentimentalism especially regarding the nature of woman.
Like or Dislike:
2 
12
Anonymous Reader:
“By the way, in Weimar, Germany the voting bloc that reliably voted for the National Socialist All German Party (NSDAP or NAZI party) was women under the age of 30. There’s your “more moral” women at work.”
How interesting that you should bring this up. Here are a few quotations (there will be a quiz at the end):
1) “If the man’s world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman’s in a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? The great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. We do not consider it correct for the women to interfere in the world of the man. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct”
2) “The so-called granting of equal rights to women, which Marxism demands, in reality does not grant equal rights but constitutes a deprivation of rights, since it draws the woman into an area in which she will necessarily be inferior. The woman has her own battlefield. With every child that she brings into the world, she fights her battle for the nation.”
3) “I detest women who dabble in politics. And if their dabbling extends to military matters it becomes utterly unendurable. In no section of the Party has a woman ever had the right to hold even the smallest post. In 1924 we had a sudden upsurge of women who were interested in politics. They wanted to join the Reichstag, in order to raise the moral level of that body, so they said. I told them that 90 per cent of the matters dealt with by parliament were masculine affairs, on which they could not have opinions of any value. Gallantry forbids one to give women an opportunity of putting themselves in situations that do not suit them.”
4) “Women has the task of being beautiful and bringing children into the world, and this is by no means as coarse and old-fashioned as one might think. The female bird preens herself for her mate and hatches her eggs for him. In exchange, the mate takes care of gathering the food and stands guard and wards off the enemy.”
Who said the above things? Was it George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? John Locke? Ronald Reagan? Roissy? No. Quotations 1-3 come from Adolph Hitler; #4 from Joseph Goebbels.
In the midst of the American-made Depression of the 1930s, Hitler campaigned on a platform of removing women from the workplace to give jobs to men. The National Socialists also passed laws closing the professions to women. Women could no longer be doctors, civil servants, judges, public prosecutors, nor could they serve on juries.
Hitler credited Jewish intellectuals with the call for the emancipation of women. In your mind run through the list of famous feminist leaders in modern America: Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Bella Abzug, Erica Jong, Gerda Lerner, Andrea Dworkin, Gertrude Stein, Gloria Steinem, Susan Faludi, Naomi Wolf, Emma Goldman, Gloria Allred, Susan Brownmiller, Judith Butler, Eve Ensler, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Michael Kimmel, Naomi Klein, Martha Nussbaum. What do they all have in common? (To find the answer go to wikipedia and type “List of Jewish Feminists”.)
Who were Hitler’s three main enemies? Liberals, Communists, and Jews. Who unleashed feminism on the world (hint: it wasn’t “tradcons”)? You do the math.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
12
Roger Klotz:
“These men just don’t get it. They think feminism is Oprah Winfrey and Planned Parenthood. No, you morons, it’s women themselves that are hardwired a certain way that, in this society, is entirely against your interests as a man.”
Oh, thanks for clearing that up. I thought that this whole site was dedicated to fighting Oprah Winfrey and Planned Parenthood!
You’ll forgive the vulgarity, I hope, but the only response that I can really think to make is: No shit. OW and PP are symptoms not causes of feminism, though they both act to further its spread.
A quick definition of feminism: The notion that women are superior to and interchangeable with men. The notion that women have a public role to play in society. The notion that men must be restrained in order to let women take their rightful place in society, i.e. at the top, in order to repair millennia of oppression by men. The notion that it places a demeaning limitation on women to expect them to be subordinate to their husbands and to restrict their role primarily to the home.
This definition, or some part of it, touches just about every woman in modern America and the West. All women and most men are feminists. I can’t take down Oprah (and neither can any man on this site) nor can I take down Planned Parenthood (though “conservatives” do seem to be chipping away at its funding). I can, however, take down one feminist, my wife, and make sure that I raise up traditional girls, my (so far one) daughter.
Believe me, I know how women are hardwired. I’ve actually taken one apart to see. The Spearhead was immensely useful as an instruction manual for taking her apart, though not so good a guide in putting her back together.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
10
Anonymous Reader:
“Any time a group of angry men try to push on any of the above, feminists will push back, and tradcons will either do nothing (except stand on the sidelines, wagging their fingers in disdain) or they will side with the feminists to defend the status quo…Tradcons cannot be relied upon to support legislative efforts, in my experience.”
Here you are right in part. Most traditionalists see very little hope in reforming the system from within. The system, i.e. modern Liberal democracy, is by its very nature and in its founding anti-traditional. That is the whole point. The deck is already stacked against us, traditionalists and men in general. Write your congresswoman and tell her to sponsor a bill penalizing women for false rape charges. Then draw a target on the wall and beat your head against the bull’s-eye.
You talk about a land in which there are unicorns, dude, you’re living in it. There is no legislative solution to men’s problems. The vicissitudes of the pro-life movement show this. There is no way that “conservatives” or Republicans will ever really stop abortion in America. They would rather keep pro-lifers on the plantation as reliable single-issue voters. The only effective means in stopping abortion has been to stop individual girls from getting one and to stop individual doctors (by persuasion—I don’t advocate shooting them) from providing them. The point is to “change hearts and minds”, then it doesn’t matter what the law is. Or, the law will change once the society has changed.
It is exactly the same with feminism and the war on men. You’re not going to get your president, congresswoman, senatrix, member of parliament, etc. to take a stand for men. You’re not going to get the vote taken away from women. You’re just not, no matter how much you protest, vote, or donate. No matter how right you are, it’s not going to happen.
The change must come gradually and on an individual woman by woman basis. I have successfully disenfranchised one woman, my wife. I have helped her to see that she doesn’t really want to vote. She doesn’t want a woman president. When I first told her about Sarah Palin running for vice-president her response was “What a whore.” She finds the notion of women in public life repugnant. Only whores mix themselves up in the affairs of men in public. A very Athenian sentiment, by the way. My grandfather allowed his wife to vote, he just marked her sample ballot so that she would know what to vote for.
As for the fight against Affirmative Action. You won’t be competing against my wife, she’s no longer in the workplace that she prepared to be in throughout her girlhood. Will my wife be making any false rape charges or sexual harassment claims? Against whom? She isn’t really around men.
You say that what I do in the privacy of my own home doesn’t matter. Fine. I guess I should have spent more time writing to my congresswoman to get divorce laws changed. How’s that worked for you? Maybe I should march in the streets and suddenly all the men would get behind me and we’d force the gubment to allow paternity testing. Or maybe we could all get on our unicorns and make a cavalry charge on the Capitol. What I am doing in the privacy of my own home matters. It is a small contribution, but a real one. To summarize:
1) My wife is out of political and economic circulation.
2) My daughter(s) will be raised to be out of circulation (either in marriage or a convent). She will dress like a woman and cook like a woman. She is already getting tons of hands-on experience raising children. She’s 5 and is potty-training her baby brother (successfully). She will know what her role is in marriage and has received a powerful lesson in feminine self-sacrifice.
3) My sons will be raised to be men. They will be told all about how women actually work by both me and my wife. They will either marry good girls, for they’ll know what to look for, or they’ll remain single, perhaps even entering the priesthood (God willing).
By the end of it I shall have contributed (God willing) six or seven soldiers to the war against feminism and Liberalism. How much have you done?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
15
Anonymous Reader:
“And where is this place that tradcons tell women how they should behave? It’s not on The View. It’s not on Facebook. It’s not on MSNBC.”
Good God! Why would we even be mixed up with this nonsense? Again, don’t you get it? These places are B-A-D. They are not interested in the plight of men. Why would the View ever have me on? Why would MSNBC? Fox News isn’t even interested in men or tradition and they’re the “conservative” news—no, not the “traditional” news.
Joseph de Maistre, a good starting place for understanding post-1789 traditionalism wrote: “What is needed is not a revolution in the opposite direction, but the opposite of a revolution.” I often pondered what he meant by that, but my private battles against feminism have shown me.
What we don’t need is a bunch of women marching in the streets demanding that their voting rights be taken away. What we don’t need is a nation of Phyllis Schlaflys. What we need is women who take no interest in politics—its really none of their business—and stay at home having children, cooking dinner, and taking care of their family and husband. That is the opposite of revolution. In time that might change society and its “laws”, but it immediately sets up an alternative to that society. It provides a separate space for human development. It raises up men and women who can ignore the laws of men and live according to the laws of their Nature and their God.
My wife doesn’t watch the View. She doesn’t do Facebook. She, sure as hell, doesn’t watch MSNBC.
Like or Dislike:
8 
11
slwerner:
“They don’t challenge women as to how they should behave, they placate them in hopes of keeping them in the Traditionalist fold… They try to paint a nice pretty picture of why women should embrace Traditional lifestyles, but they seem deathly afraid to actually address the issue of why so many (young) women are making themselves unmarriageable, and certainly unworthy of the risk a man would have to take on in a marriage to them.”
Traditional men use all the weapons in the arsenal to achieve their ends. I have challenged my wife, I have demanded certain behavior, I have placated her, I have painted pretty pictures, I have made her cry and wish she was dead, I have had to endure (half-hearted) threats of divorce, I have appealed to her love of her children and her husband, I have appealed to her Faith, I have cajoled her, I have been patient with her, I have been exasperated with her, I have mocked her, I have praised her. I have done everything except lay a hand on her and have achieved the results (still developing) that I set out to achieve.
Certain non-essentials had to be jettisoned, most painfully homeschooling, but a good leader has to know what he is working with. A good leader makes his will look attractive to his subordinates. Read any commander’s speech to his soldiers before battle. He doesn’t say, “It is my will that you march forth and die to achieve my aims.” He says, “This is why you want to march forward and die to achieve your aims.”
You do have to make a woman want to fill her proper role. This is the effect of marriage 2.0 laws. I freely acknowledge that. But it is possible to render those laws mostly, if not entirely, irrelevant. Of course, men have always had to win their wives over. Subordination is a difficult thing for unruly women. In ye olden dayes, just because the laws forced women to keep up their end of the bargain did not automatically make for a successful or happy marriage. Husbands have always had to get in their wives’ heads and help them to want to do what they ought to do.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
11
Em:
Your comments show you to be exactly the kind of 1.0 woman that any man would be blessed to find and marry.
“Traditionalist understand the need to salvage it, but don’t understand the dynamic of how the human pair bond works. Men are still pandering to woman’s emotional whims, while woman are still willing to accept false honor from men who are operating on a lie built by feminists. Women degrade real womanhood every day and men reward them by still giving into their every childish wish.”
Yes, this is often all too true. But it is changing, slowly but surely (and I don’t mean that as a cliche). I learned an enormous amount about what you call the “pair bond” from the Spearhead and other sites (e.g. Roissy) alongside old Catholic manuals on marriage and moral theology. More men and women(!) in the traditionalist world do need to wake up. Many of them naturally gravitate to their proper roles, but better understanding of the enemy we face will always help.
Keep up the good fight! And tell your friends.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
Anonymous Reader:
“Tell me where you have taken back a church. People invite me to churches from time to time, and without fail I find a feminized operation with some old eunuch propped up for show. I’ve seen it in Catholic churches. I’ve seen it in Protestant churches. I’ve seen it in Reform synagogues…If you tradcons have taken back a church, please tell us all what and where it is.”
Well, I certainly wouldn’t go to Reform synagogues to find anti-Liberalism! You do lay your finger on a very important point. Most churches in America and throughout the world have been taken over by Liberalism and therefore are supportive of all Liberalism’s spawn including feminism.
I myself am a “Latin Mass Catholic dork” of the diocesan variety, though I have a great deal of sympathy for the SSPX and sedevacantists (if you know what those are—not meant offensively—many on the outside really don’t know). Going to a run of the mill Catholic church is probably going to result in a brush with Liberalism, though I personally have not seen a lot of feminism preached from the pulpit. The best place to find anti-Liberalism is at a traditional Latin Mass. Non-diocesan will probably give it to you more explicitly. You can find it in good conservative parishes, but these are often hard to find and there will always be an admixture of some Liberalism.
What you would find at a TLM: women wearing modest dresses/skirts and veils; scores of children well-dressed and (mostly) behaving well; men in suits who are in charge of their family. Meet with these people socially and you’ll find a natural and desired segregation of the sexes. The men together having a drink and a smoke talking politics and theology and family-life (some children, mostly boys, will be congregating and either playing or listening depending on their age). The women, with babies nearby, will be together elsewhere having a drink (much needed!), not smoking, and talking about male oppression and recommending good divorce attorneys—no, just kidding. I frankly don’t know what they talk about, nor do I care. My wife reports that they mostly discuss the kids, their extended families, and mutual friends. In other words they gossip—well women always have. The unicorns mostly hang out in the stable, smoking and gossiping about the leprechauns.
The women mostly do not work, if they do they don’t have careers (of course there are always outliers). The women mostly do not use contraception. The women mostly dress like women.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
@ Jack Donovan
After listening to the interview I feel as though she is a very fair minded person but naive and trying to cling onto a middle-class view of things that no longer exists. Of course there are other factors at work in society (progressive income tax, credential inflation, etc) but she does not seem to understand that radical feminism is like a chain letter that benefited the first generation of women but will harm almost everyone afterward.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
“Traditional, conservative, men gave women the vote. Because traditional, conservative men of the Victorian era pedestalized women to an insane degree. In the US, one of the most common arguments for extending the voting franchise to women was the superior morality of women. Since women were more moral than men, naturally giving them the right to vote would clean up politics in a short time.”
Antiphon
Your understanding of history is a bit limited. America was founded on the principle of Liberty.
It appears that your history knowledge is lacking as well. Or perhaps you are playing the game of “No True Scotsman” so popular with trad-cons. The principle of liberty that underlies the Declaration and Constitution is nothing like the libertine notion so popular today, it was ordered liberty.
America is a Liberal nation. It has never been anything but Liberal. Conservatives are Liberals in the mould of the Founding Fathers.
All industrialized nations are liberal nations in that sense, then. A difference with no difference.
“Liberals” in our own day are also Liberals, but radicals and blur off into various shades of Marxism. There has never been a very strong traditionalist view of the world in America, such as there was and is in Europe and esp. formerly Catholic nations, e.g. France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Austria, parts of Germany, and many countries of the former Soviet Bloc.
And every one of those Catholic nations has gone down the road of dictatorship in the last 100 years. Falangeist Spain and Fascist Italy grew their own version, as did southern Germany (NSDAP). Austria willingly and eagerly embraced the Nazi’s, Vichy France did the same, and Belgium has always been a corrupt creation. Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria also had their version of Fascism.
If this is your ideal, if Benito Mussolini is your idea of a good leader, then we have nothing to discuss further.
Or if you are another one of those who wish to create a theocracy, a Catholic Monarchy, then you should seriously consider expating from the US. Because there are still tens of millions of people in the US who are descended from refugees who fled Catholic France, Catholic Germany, in some cases with nothing but the clothing on their back, in order to escape being tortured to death in some Catholic dungeon.
A theocracy – Catholic, Moslem, or any thing else – is utterly unacceptable in the US. It will be resisted by force if need be.
I don’t see much point in further discussion until your objectives are clear.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
Antiphon – ”Most traditionalists that I know abhor the Victorians for their sentimentalism especially regarding the nature of woman.”
Which, of course explains Laura Wood’s fondness for Victorian Era Paintings?
But, I must say, all those words, in all those posts, and still all you’ve managed to do is explain why the vast majority of people aren’t true Traditionalists (I must add, I’m at a complete loss as to who is). But, that just highlights what many have been saying – Traditionalist are a very small minority.
And, even by your own admission, you only been able to bully one woman into submission, and you can only keep your daughters in the fold by isolating them from the world.
Not exactly impressive, I’m afraid – and not very persuasive.
And, another thing, why is it that whenever Traditionalist are confronted with various female pathologies, the response always seems to be to go off on a tangent about liberalism and personal autonomy (which, of course, also has the typical effect of diverting the focus off of women behaving badly, and puts the over-all fault mostly back onto men – for allowing liberalism and autonomy)?
I know that a number of people, with Anonymous Reader being a very prominent one, have asked repeatedly if Traditionalist actually have any constructive ideas as to how the young women of modern western society can be reformed so that the young men can then be reformed (being as how young men have historically adapted tot eh expectations of the young women they desired).
Yet, still, all we ever see is the (largely empty) rhetoric about “rejecting liberalism and personal autonomy”, and the supposed need for young men to “man up” and do a better job of fulfilling their “duty” to (traditional?) society – be it as protector/providers, cannon fodder, or just random “hangers-on” in the service of women.
Is that really the best that you can do?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
Okay, but did she ever fucking point out how bad of a deal marriage is for men, the fact that the majority of marriages end in divorce, the fact that 75% of divorces are initiated by the woman, the fact that women get custody of the kids 80% of the time after divorce, the fact that 97% of alimony payers are men?? Did she ever once mention any of these things?? I doubt it. These are the real reasons why men are not getting married and raising families. BECAUSE MARRIAGE WILL DESTROY MEN’S LIVES AND THEY KNOW IT. They are avoiding marriage because they know it will ruin their lives and end in destruction, with them losing their wives, their kids, their house, and paying her to alimony for the rest of her life while she fucks another guy in what used to be his house.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
Anonymous Reader:
“The principle of liberty that underlies the Declaration and Constitution is nothing like the libertine notion so popular today, it was ordered liberty.” (Sorry, I don’t know how to make this show up in italics.)
Obviously, but libertinism grows out of the misguided view that liberty even orderly liberty is the be all end all of human endeavor. Once authority is gone in one thing, it’s gone in everything.
As for “fascism”, etc. I certainly would find Francoist Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Rexist Belgium, and certain aspects of Vichy France to be a better place to be than Rooseveltist-Johnsonian-Reaganesque-Obamaean America.
Mussolini was a mixed bag; Hitler even more so. To the extent that they promoted or even tolerated traditional modes of life and social interaction, I would say that one could live in peace under such rulers. In both of their particular cases, however, much of the traditional rhetoric was devoid of sincerity. They said the things they said in order to quiet criticism from the Right. Mussolini was probably better in general than Hitler because his ideology was not so totalitarian.
On balance, I certainly have more sympathy for the enemies of that butcher Stalin (“Uncle Joe” to you) than for his friends. It is also hard to muster much enthusiasm for an Anglo-American crusade for liberty that surrendered half of Europe to the Soviets.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
14
Anonymous Reader:
“Because there are still tens of millions of people in the US who are descended from refugees who fled Catholic France, Catholic Germany, in some cases with nothing but the clothing on their back, in order to escape being tortured to death in some Catholic dungeon.”
So, when my great-grandparents came over from Italy in 1917 it was to avoid being tortured in some Catholic dungeon in Italy? OK. Is your understanding of Catholicism based mostly on Monty Python sketches?
Like or Dislike:
6 
12
slwerner:
“But, that just highlights what many have been saying – Traditionalist are a very small minority.”
Unlike the millions of MRAs. I have never claimed that traditionalists are a large group. That’s why I have always, naively, thought that the two groups had more to gain from each other. Our aims diverge a great deal, of course, but on the issue of women there is some overlap. (Anonymous Reader seems quite happy to ally with communist butchers in order to suppress anti-Liberalism in western Europe, but perhaps the thought of an alliance with traditional thinkers in order to fight feminism is too much for him.)
The main thing that I see missing in most strains of the MRM is any notion of what their real goal is. One gets the impression that victory will come when all women give blowjobs to all men regardless of their evolutionary ranking. I have always hoped to contribute a fuller notion of what a post-feminist society might look like and have suggested that there are enclaves in which it exists.
One thing that is very apparent here is that most men don’t really have the stomach for that–it isn’t what they want. Then I ask myself: “What then does the MRM want?” Do MRAs only want paternity testing and robotic vaginas? Do they want to go their own way and avoid women entirely (a goal I heartily support)? Do they all want to get vasectomies and bang hot chicks? Do they want to live lives secure from predatory laws and social constructs that benefit women and punish men? Do they want to go to work and avoid sexual harassment charges? Do they want to get back at their ex-wives? What?
And how are they to do it? Through marching in the streets? Through letter-writing campaigns to congress? Through voting for Republicans? Through telling women to shut up and blow them? Through having women make them sandwiches after allowing themselves to be sodomized? Through refusing to get married (like that’s going to catch on)? Through informing men of the perils of their position? And the latter to what end?
Listen, I hate feminism. I hate what it has done to men. I hate what it has done to women. I hate what it has done to our society. I hate what it has done to the workplace. I hate what it has done to our economy. I hate what it has done to our art and literature. I hate what it has done to our fashions of dress. I hate what it has done to the Church. I hate what it has done to families. I hate what it has done to my family (the one I came from and the one I am building). I hate what it has done to our view of history. I hate what it has done to the truth. I hate what it has done to logic. I hate what it has done to reason. I hate what it has done to the academy. I hate it with a raw, white-hot, passion.
So what do I do? I try to understand it. I try to set aside taboos and prejudices (Nazi-bad/America-good; women-pure/men-beastly; blowjob-good/fatherhood-bad; etc.) in order to understand. Where did it come from? Who was responsible? What are its elements? What are its opposite forces? Who perpetuates it? How does it compare to other systems? I ask these questions because I am looking for an answer to the ultimate question: How do we kill it and make sure it never comes back?
I am basically a “conservative” guy. I look to the past for solutions. If it worked in the past, let’s adapt it to the present. I take a dim view of new solutions to old problems. I’m not going to swallow a spider to catch the fly. Patriarchy is natural. Male authority it natural. Female subordination is natural. Religious belief is natural. All of these things have been synthesized in the past and can be synthesized now. I think that this will work. Slowly at first and within limits. But it will grow.
It is also useful to see where men have gone wrong because we did. Does that make women better than men? Heavens, no. Does that mean women aren’t at fault? No. But we have to recognize that the problem is bigger than a few laws in America. And the solution is bigger than male birth control pills.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
12
slwerner:
“And, another thing, why is it that whenever Traditionalist are confronted with various female pathologies, the response always seems to be to go off on a tangent about liberalism and personal autonomy.”
I only brought that into the discussion when Anonymous Reader started saying that traditionalist men were responsible for the milestones of feminism, e.g. suffrage. I was saying that the political environment in 19th and 20th century America (Britain, etc.) was not traditionalist, it was liberal. I do believe that feminism is an aspect of liberalism. It is the removal of proper authority, i.e. male (husbands and fathers), over women and children.
Like or Dislike:
5 
9
slwerner:
“I know that a number of people, with Anonymous Reader being a very prominent one, have asked repeatedly if Traditionalist actually have any constructive ideas as to how the young women of modern western society can be reformed so that the young men can then be reformed (being as how young men have historically adapted tot eh expectations of the young women they desired).”
It depends on what you mean by “reformed”. Do you mean: How can we teach our daughters to give blowjobs to beta males? Do you mean: How can we teach our daughters to get back in the kitchen? Do you mean: Should we teach young women to be pure and chaste so that young men will also be pure and chaste?
I have given my answer, but will do so again. Women need to be re-taught that their place in society is not the boardroom, the courtroom, the pulpit, the lectern, the helm of an aircraft carrier, the Oval Office, the cockpit of a B-2 bomber, etc. Their place is the kitchen, the nursery, the home, the convent–and that’s about it.
How do we go about this in concrete terms? We either ignore the situation entirely and hope for the best (MGTOW). Or we marry after carefully choosing a wife. We help to reform her. Then we beget (many–God willing) children on her. We raise the girls to be domestic. We teach them to cook, to sew, to care for children, to understand men so that they can one day be a good help meet to a husband. We raise them to respect men (beginning with their father and then their husband). We raise them to avoid the workplace (there goes sexual harassment) and perhaps to find other ways to help their families financially if necessary. We raise them to be honest (there goes false rape accusations). We raise them to understand and appreciate and encourage, if need be, their husband’s authority within the family. We raise them to be modest and pure (knowing that they are no more inclined to this biologically than men, though the stakes are much higher for them if they are not). We raise them to be self-sacrificing and to put the good of their family ahead of their own. We raise them to know that divorce while it may be legal according to the laws of man is sinful according to the laws of God and His Church. We teach them to be patient and unassuming rather than demanding and brazen. We keep them out of sports so that they don’t develop a competitive spirit which is unbecoming and inappropriate for women and will ultimately be turned on their husbands. We teach them to put their thoughts on motherhood and not on a career.
We raise the boys to be men. We raise them to be confident in their natural authority vis-a-vis women. We raise them to work hard, to be honest, to sacrifice (of course girls must be taught all this to in terms applicable to their own fields). We teach them to express themselves well so that they can be leaders of men and independent thinkers. We teach them to reason. We teach them to be leaders, because even a private in the army or a janitor is the king of his family and rules over his wife and children.
If I knew better what you want women to be reformed as, perhaps I could answer more directly, but this is the reformation that I would like to see and the means to achieve it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
13
As for “fascism”, etc. I certainly would find Francoist Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Rexist Belgium, and certain aspects of Vichy France to be a better place to be than Rooseveltist-Johnsonian-Reaganesque-Obamaean America.
Thanks for the honesty. It is not often nowadays one finds someone who is in favor of dictatorship.
Mussolini was a mixed bag; Hitler even more so. To the extent that they promoted or even tolerated traditional modes of life and social interaction, I would say that one could live in peace under such rulers.
You evidently know very little about real life under either leader. But again, your preference for not only dictatorship, but totalitarianism provided it wears a Churchianity mask is interesting.
In both of their particular cases, however, much of the traditional rhetoric was devoid of sincerity. They said the things they said in order to quiet criticism from the Right. Mussolini was probably better in general than Hitler because his ideology was not so totalitarian.
So it’s dictatorship that you desire, it can be Socialist or it can be Fascist, right?
On balance, I certainly have more sympathy for the enemies of that butcher Stalin (“Uncle Joe” to you) than for his friends.
As an American, I have sympathy for the individual peoples who suffered under such regimes and an unchangeable opposition to the respective tyrannies. Your hero Mussolini may not have been as efficient a murderer as your “acceptable leader” Hitler, but it was mainly due to his own personality. I’m quite aware that the National Socialist regime didn’t just single out Jews for extermination as “untermensch”, but also Slavs, and many others. It is of no importance to me that these blood covered thugs did their crimes in the name of Churchianity, while Lenin, Stalin and the rest of that gang did theirs in the name of “the proletariet”. To the ordinary person on the ground, it made no difference. To the Orthodox Christians of Ukraine who were deliberately starved to death the ideology of the uniformed goons made no difference, for example, any more than the ideology of the guards at Dachau mattered to a Catholic trade unionist sent to work till death.
It is also hard to muster much enthusiasm for an Anglo-American crusade for liberty that surrendered half of Europe to the Soviets.
What choice would you have preferred? A Europe united under one or the other Fascists?
So it appears that not only do you wish to re-fight the religious wars of the 16th, 17th and to some extent 18th centuries, you also wish to re-fight the world war of the 1930′s – 1940′s as well? Is that correct?
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
As for “fascism”, etc. I certainly would find Francoist Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Rexist Belgium, and certain aspects of Vichy France to be a better place to be than Rooseveltist-Johnsonian-Reaganesque-Obamaean America.
Thanks for the honesty. It is not often nowadays one finds someone who is in favor of dictatorship.
Mussolini was a mixed bag; Hitler even more so. To the extent that they promoted or even tolerated traditional modes of life and social interaction, I would say that one could live in peace under such rulers.
You evidently know very little about real life under either leader. But again, your preference for not only dictatorship, but totalitarianism provided it wears a Churchianity mask is interesting.
In both of their particular cases, however, much of the traditional rhetoric was devoid of sincerity. They said the things they said in order to quiet criticism from the Right. Mussolini was probably better in general than Hitler because his ideology was not so totalitarian.
So it’s dictatorship that you desire, it can be Socialist or it can be Fascist, right?
On balance, I certainly have more sympathy for the enemies of that butcher Stalin (“Uncle Joe” to you) than for his friends.
As an American, I have sympathy for the individual peoples who suffered under such regimes and an unchangeable opposition to the respective tyrannies. Your hero Mussolini may not have been as efficient a murderer as your “acceptable leader” Hitler, but it was mainly due to his own personality. I’m quite aware that the National Socialist regime didn’t just single out Jews for extermination as “untermensch”, but also Slavs, and many others. It is of no importance to me that these blood covered thugs did their crimes in the name of Churchianity, while Lenin, Stalin and the rest of that gang did theirs in the name of “the proletariet”. To the ordinary person on the ground, it made no difference. To the Orthodox Christians of Ukraine who were deliberately starved to death the ideology of the uniformed goons made no difference, for example, any more than the ideology of the guards at Dachau mattered to a Catholic trade unionist sent to work till death.
It is also hard to muster much enthusiasm for an Anglo-American crusade for liberty that surrendered half of Europe to the Soviets.
What choice would you have preferred? A Europe united under one or the other of some flavor of dictator? You prefer “black” dictators and assume that I must want “red”? Doesn’t work that way, buddy. Doesn’t work that way at all. I’m an American. “Consent of the governed” matters a lot, which is one reason I oppose all forms of Marxism, including feminism.
It appears that not only do you wish to re-fight the religious wars of the 16th, 17th and to some extent 18th centuries, you also wish to re-fight the world war of the 1930′s – 1940′s as well? Is that correct?
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
slwerner:
“Yet, still, all we ever see is the (largely empty) rhetoric about…”
As opposed to what, the effective and persuasive rhetoric of the MRM that is sweeping the nation and the globe and causing men to rise up and cast off their chains? That is scaring politicians into repealing laws that are unfair to men? That is speeding up the creation of robotic vaginas? That is upending the legal system through appeals to forgotten and ignored aspects of English common law? That is carrying us across the threshold into the brave new world of designer babies borne by Indian surrogate mothers so that single fathers can have children and place them in daycare all day while they’re out banging hot chicks?
Words are nothing and everything. I detest the ridiculous cliche of “empty rhetoric”. It is usually applied to others by people who have neither done anything concrete nor have anything useful to say.
My rhetoric is not empty. I have put my money where my mouth is.
Why don’t you tell us what you have done to further the cause of men? Make sure to include the results.
You, too, Anonymous Reader. Have you defeated marriage 2.0 in your town? Are false rape accusations down in your town? Let us know how you did it, so we can eradicate the beast of feminism.
I cannot claim much, but I have put the people under my immediate authority on a path to avoid contributing to all of this. May God in His mercy keep them on that path. I can only account for five people (myself and my wife included), but it is a start.
There is no magic wand. There is no silver bullet. There is no “red pill”. Blood, sweat, and tears, man.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
“Because there are still tens of millions of people in the US who are descended from refugees who fled Catholic France, Catholic Germany, in some cases with nothing but the clothing on their back, in order to escape being tortured to death in some Catholic dungeon.”
So, when my great-grandparents came over from Italy in 1917 it was to avoid being tortured in some Catholic dungeon in Italy?
Is English your first language? You seem to have some difficulties reading and understanding simple sentences. Or perhaps you are ignorant of US history prior to 1917. Start with the Huguenots and how they came to be in North America, and work on from there.
Arrogance coupled with ignorance isn’t serving you well.
Is your understanding of Catholicism based mostly on Monty Python sketches?
No, it is based upon historical facts. Something you would do well to try learning. Once you’ve mastered the details of the Huguenot, try reading up on what the Catholic armies did in parts of Germany during the 30 years war you are so eager to refight. Try the siege of Magdeburg for a start.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Antiphon
(Anonymous Reader seems quite happy to ally with communist butchers in order to suppress anti-Liberalism in western Europe, but perhaps the thought of an alliance with traditional thinkers in order to fight feminism is too much for him.)
Antiphon seems to be a liar. Rumor has it that there’s something in the Bible that prohibits lying. But maybe not in the version used by tradcons like Antiphon?
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
slwerner:
“And, another thing, why is it that whenever Traditionalist are confronted with various female pathologies, the response always seems to be to go off on a tangent about liberalism and personal autonomy.”
Antiphon
I only brought that into the discussion when Anonymous Reader started saying that traditionalist men were responsible for the milestones of feminism, e.g. suffrage.
That was in reply to your canard that “men”, i.e. all men, were responsible for the march of feminism. That example of the apex fallacy, i.e. conflating the actions of a few men who occupy the apex of any organization, with the actions of the majority of men, is a favorite hobbyhorse of feminists. At least women have some biological justification for the apex fallacy, whereas male tradcons should know better.
And my point stands firm. The only way you can squirm out of it is via the usual No True Scotsman fallacy, where every traditional conservative who humored feminism is magically declared to be “No’ a true traditional conservative”. Although in your case, you basically appear to despise the entire American culture going back centuries and evidently wish to replace it with some neo-feudal Catholic theocracy.
Frankly, it makes you look like a crank, on a par with those expecting UFO’s to land any day now.
I was saying that the political environment in 19th and 20th century America (Britain, etc.) was not traditionalist, it was liberal. I do believe that feminism is an aspect of liberalism.
You can believe anything you want to. However, feminism is a branch of Marxism. It employs the same tropes of “oppressor / oppressed” as Marxism, the same group-rights approach, and so forth.
Now, can you get around to addressing slwerner’s actual point? Or will you simply continue to evade the issue and mumble for your Catholic theocracy?
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
The hallmark of both the Franco regime in Spain and the Salazar regime in Portugal ought to be obvious to any careful observer: they failed to last for even two generations. Both were instituted in the late 1930′s, and both were gone in the 1970′s. The death of Franco marked the end of the Falange as a serious factor in Spanish politics. The Salazar dictatorship was overthrown by its own army, if I recall correctly. In both cases, the dictator was followed by a left wing regime, and an increase in feminism both culturally and legally. Spain is arguably more feminist than the US.
Is that your idea of trad-con success?
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Anonymous Reader:
“It is not often nowadays one finds someone who is in favor of dictatorship.”
I’m not in favor of dictatorship. I am in favor of a rightly ordered society. These pretty much disappeared from the face of the planet during the 19th century. In the 20th there were some attempts to rebuild them though they were flawed to a greater or lesser degree. Franco and Salazar were less flawed. Mussolini was more flawed. Hitler was greatly flawed.
“But again, your preference for not only dictatorship, but totalitarianism provided it wears a Churchianity mask is interesting.”
I don’t prefer dictatorship. Patterns of government are ultimately of secondary importance to the kind of society they promote or tolerate. Franco and Salazar were Catholic and promoted a Catholic society, just as Spanish and Portuguese kings had done before them. I don’t like totalitarianism. I prefer hierarchy, subsidiarity, and order. I don’t like Liberalism as it has worked out for some of the same reasons.
“So it’s dictatorship that you desire, it can be Socialist or it can be Fascist, right?”
No. “Is English your first language?” A great deal of my sympathy for fascism comes from it’s anti-communism. In the final analysis, however, neither is acceptable. Fascism does, it seem, allow a little more space for tradition and Catholicism (probably because, as you have noted, it was Catholic countries that provided the best soil for fascism) and is therefore preferable to Socialism which tries to root them out. Liberalism does the same, though more insidiously.
“Your hero Mussolini may not have been as efficient a murderer as your ‘acceptable leader’ Hitler, but it was mainly due to his own personality.”
Mussolini is not my hero as even someone for whom English is not a first language could glean from reading what I have written here. Mussolini is better than Hitler. (By the way, quotation marks suggest that you are quoting something someone said. I never called Hitler and “acceptable leader”—indeed, I don’t find him to have been one.) I suspect that Mussolini’s inefficiency in this realm owes as much to the Italian character as to his personality. By the way, just so you don’t start claiming that I support murder: I don’t.
“It is of no importance to me that these blood covered thugs did their crimes in the name of Churchianity, while Lenin, Stalin and the rest of that gang did theirs in the name of ‘the proletariet.’”
Here you betray, once again, your own ignorance. Mussolini and Hitler never claimed to be building Christian states. Mussolini tolerated the Church, he did not promote Her interests. Hitler was himself very much opposed to the Church and to Christianity more generally. Plenty of priests died in the camps in both Germany and Poland.
Alas, not every country can have hands as clean as America.
“What choice would you have preferred? A Europe united under one or the other Fascists?”
That is an enormously interesting question, though one that is best left to a nice quiet corner of a bar and a couple of pitchers of beer. I suspect, however, that you would find me an unacceptable drinking partner, though the contrary is not true, at all.
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
Anonymous Reader:
“That was in reply to your canard that “men”, i.e. all men, were responsible for the march of feminism.”
Did I write “all men”? Had I intended to say “all men”, I would have made that clear. Of course all men weren’t responsible for feminism anymore than all women are feminists. Men in power were. Men more generally do not seem to have put up too much of a fight. I don’t intend that as an indictment of them. All people in a democracy are easily bamboozled into supporting whatever is shiny and new.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
Anonymous Reader:
“However, feminism is a branch of Marxism. It employs the same tropes of “oppressor / oppressed” as Marxism, the same group-rights approach, and so forth.”
That’s amazing since feminism actually antedates Marxism by as much as a century. Was Wollstonecraft a Marxist? Was Locke a Marxist? No. Both were Liberals. Now it is true that Karl Marx took up feminism because he saw it as a useful tool to smash society to pieces to make way for his own philosophy, but this is a case of exploiting an innate part of Liberalism to destroy the whole.
In the process, much of the terminology of feminism was changed to graft it more closely into Marxist ideology. It is also true that many of our famous feminists in America have been Marxists. This does not, however, mean that feminism proceeds from Marxism. Both come from Liberalism and share its central hatred of authority in all its forms.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
Does anyone have any explanations for why Women fall for Marxist/Socialist policies so quickly? I personally feel that Women are naturally inclined to those ideas, I don’t know why though?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
Anonymous Reader:
“Now, can you get around to addressing slwerner’s actual point?”
Which was? Why do tradcons turn to Liberalism when they talk about feminism?
I don’t know. First, because I don’t know who your “tradcons” are. I told slwerner why I–the only “tradcon” I can speak for–brought it up in reference to your statements about the “tradcons” who gave us feminism.
If I might venture a hypothesis for why these “tradcons” (whoever they are) do this, I would think it is because they or we (since apparently I am a member of this much-vilified group) view feminism as a branch of Liberalism. You can’t understand or fight one without understanding or fighting the other.
Like or Dislike:
4 
9
andybob May 23, 2011 at 23:35
Your response was the most ferociously clear-eyed defence of liberty I had seen in ages and you earned my everlasting respect because of it. Here you are again, fighting the good fight. Well done, sir!
Hi Andybob, Cheers! thanks very much (though I’m somewhat surprised!). I am finding this thread much more interesting than that one, mainly because I didn’t start of in a really shitty mood like I did last time (I’d just been attacked (can’t remember what over, if anything, but a disconnected issue) and my blood was high. Then a tradcon came along and stamped on one of my hot-buttons (a la Oddsock) saying something patronising like ‘there, there brothers, let us all be most friendly, forsooth etc ‘…boom. I regret my mood, but not the points I made, I just think that this thread was more productive in tone.
Many people here seem to have parallel opinions, this wasn’t so clear last time (too much efing and blinding). By the end of it I was quite calm, but I’m not sure that that was visible to others (c’est la guerre).
BUT, I think that what fell out of that one and this one is that whatever group Antiphon identifies with, doesn’t really have the same concerns as ‘us’, doesn’t want the same things and doesn’t share the same way of going about life. We just don’t have much in common, that I can see.
1) TMs aren’t interested in addressing fra, fdv, divorce theft, AA etc. Saying tsk-tsk doesn’t count. Fixing those and allowing me to live as I wish is my number one issue with feminism.
2) TMs want men to walk into the machine gun nests of marriage 2.0, because that’s what men do (oh not any more we don’t). From my point of view they won’t face reality and see us little people as cannon fodder for their back to the future vision.
3) They demand the right to dominate women. Now I know I see myself as concerned about men’s rights, but I don’t need to crap on women and dominate them. I don’t hate women. I’m happy with equality with women that act as consequence taking adults. FRAs / False DV etc etc would have very harsh punishment in ‘Gendeau World’. AA would be gone in all forms as it isn’t needed and actually harms interracial / intersex relationships (IMHO). Gendeau world would let men and women live their separate lives, or together as they wished. Divorce would be just (my onjective male standards).
4) I suspect that ‘our’ domination of ‘our’ little women would just put us as second from bottom in the new pecking order, We still get the shaft, just from different people – a.k.a. “Same shit, different gravy”
5) Not only don’t I not want to dominate women, I don’t want to be responsible for one either. I’m happy having female friends, but that’s it. No pandering, no subsidizing, no going to friends’ weddings / christening etc.
So, all in all I found Antiphon intelligent and articulate, but starting a long way from where I am and heading in a different direction.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Anonymous Reader:
“The only way you can squirm out of it is via the usual No True Scotsman fallacy, where every traditional conservative who humored feminism is magically declared to be ‘No’ a true traditional conservative.’”
I wasn’t aware of this fallacy, but your meaning is clear. My point is entirely different, however.
Let’s replace the terms, which you are not defining very well anyway (e.g. What is a “tradcon” and who are they?).
Once upon a time there was a country ruled by dogs. Their national food was bones. Unfortunately, an army of monkeys came in and conquered the dogs. As a sign of canine submission the monkeys voted that bananas would henceforth be the national food and all dogs must bury bananas and eat bananas.
I’m saying that dogs did not choose to have bananas become the national food, monkeys did. To make the point clear, so there’s no mistake: dogs are not monkeys.
America is a nation founded on Liberal principles. Everyone who participates in the national life of this society is a Liberal (from Washington to Jefferson to Roosevelt to McCarthy to Kennedy to Reagan to Scalia to Ginsburg to Clinton to Bush to Obama). The particular Liberal leaders of the early 2oth century imposed female suffrage. Many of the leaders in this crusade, as in abolition and temperance, were “conservatives”, i.e. Liberals who were not Marxist and more in tune with the Founding Fathers’ version of Liberalism.
I’m saying Liberals and even “conservatives” imposed feminism, but traditionalists are something else entirely. You’re conflating conservatives and traditionalists into one group.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10
slwerner:
“Which, of course explains Laura Wood’s fondness for Victorian Era Paintings?”
I’ve never heard of her. I tend not to take women’s opinions on philosophical, political, and social questions very seriously.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
Gendeau:
Yes, I quite agree, this has been an enlightening thread. (By the way, which thread does your “ferociously clear-eyed defense of liberty” appear on? I’d like to read it.)
I want to address some of your points:
“whatever group Antiphon identifies with, doesn’t really have the same concerns as ‘us’, doesn’t want the same things and doesn’t share the same way of going about life. We just don’t have much in common, that I can see.”
I guess I just wonder who the “us” and “them” are. I am a man who is concerned with all of the things you mention (though I don’t know what “fra” stands for…). I see them as a blight on society. I am a man who deals with women. I just see a different solution.
It is dangerous to try to define things like MRM and traditionalism, too narrowly. One of the nice things about men and about traditional life is its variety (one of Russell Kirk’s best points about “conservatism”). To my mind MRM is a general thing with many different paths to many different sub-goals which lead to a main goal, namely the re-establishment of men as equal members of society. Men should not be persecuted or taken advantage of just because we are men. Another goal is that women should not have a privileged place in society that deprives men of their rights.
Some of us see a return to tradition as the solution–others search for new solutions. We have the same goal, but as you say, we are starting in different places and going different directions. I say that we are headed for the same destination but for different reasons and by different paths.
Two men must travel to Las Vegas. One drives from Los Angeles, the other flies from St. Louis. One goes to gamble, the other goes to a conference. Both want to get to Las Vegas, perhaps we can have a drink and play some blackjack together, no? Because ultimately we are both men in Las Vegas.
As I have said, I’ve been away from the Spearhead for about a year, though I started reading it when there was only one screen of posts (I think that there were a total of three the first time I visited). One thing I have noticed from my Rip van Winkle perspective is that many of the more traditional voices have stopped commenting. I think that this is a shame and not necessarily helpful to the MRM.
During my year off I moderated many of my positions as I thought through some of the old debates in which I had participated. I became less strident and more understanding (imagine what I used to be like). This is what men do: they debate and argue both to persuade and to understand and articulate their own positions better. I found my conversation with you, A.R., and slwerner immensely useful, though I persuaded none of you and you didn’t persuade me.
We are all men and we are all targets. We are finding different ways to improve (I would say “restore”) our position.
Like or Dislike:
6 
12
Antiphon,
“What then does the MRM want?” Do MRAs only want paternity testing and robotic vaginas? Do they want to go their own way and avoid women entirely (a goal I heartily support)? Do they all want to get vasectomies and bang hot chicks? Do they want to live lives secure from predatory laws and social constructs that benefit women and punish men? Do they want to go to work and avoid sexual harassment charges? Do they want to get back at their ex-wives? What?”
I’m pretty sure that you covered all the bases in your impressive list. You can drop the ex-wife bit though (I STRONGLY suspect this isn’t high on the list of most men here).
You are right that there are many issues and desires here, but if you address point 1 in my last post, I reckon most men would be happy (fra, dv, divorce aa etc) to go on with their lives.
p.s.
“What choice would you have preferred? A Europe united under one or the other Fascists?”
That is an enormously interesting question, though one that is best left to a nice quiet corner of a bar and a couple of pitchers of beer. I suspect, however, that you would find me an unacceptable drinking partner, though the contrary is not true, at all.
Can I come? I don’t think anybody would change their minds, but it’d be an interesting discussion.
Sincerely, Antiphon, I wish you well, but I don’t see much common ground.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
“I’m not in favor of dictatorship. I am in favor of a rightly ordered society. ”
You see, this right here, is what convinces me that your idea of paradise on earth differs from mine. Religious faith seems go give tremendous powers to the faithful to start telling others how to live. People who don’t share the faith don’t tend to do well…
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
“Yes, I quite agree, this has been an enlightening thread. (By the way, which thread does your “ferociously clear-eyed defense of liberty” appear on? I’d like to read it.)”
Sigh, to be honest the same points have been made here, more clearly, by multiple people…with a LOT less swearing / shaming language / swearing about shaming language / shaming language about swearing.
As I said, it was in a very bad mood for unrelated reasons, there was some anger-flashover…this IS the better thread (I promise).
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Gendeau:
“TMs aren’t interested in addressing fra, fdv, divorce theft, AA etc. Saying tsk-tsk doesn’t count. Fixing those and allowing me to live as I wish is my number one issue with feminism.”
I am interested in fixing those things, I just feel that it is more likely to occur from the ground up: change the people then change the society then change the laws. In the meantime, you kind of insulate yourself from the worst aspects of today’s situation.
I would like you to live as you wish, free from feminism and its enforcers. A.R. is right about me–I would like to see Catholic monarchy re-established, but I know it won’t be. So I look around for the best possible alternative. Perhaps it is live according to your wishes in a society that provides the maximum of freedom. Perhaps libertarians are our best hope, though far from perfect.
“TMs want men to walk into the machine gun nests of marriage 2.0, because that’s what men do.”
No. I don’t want you to do this. This is one of the places I’ve moderated. I have a great deal of respect for the MGTOWs. When I said they were the “flight” to TMs’ “fight”, I didn’t mean to slight them. Sometimes retreat is the only way forward. I don’t have a great deal of hope for the marriage strike–it conflicts too much with nature. I do think, however, that a growing body of articulate and unattached men will help to create a more right-thinking society. (Remember: I’m Catholic so I have no problem with single men–wow that came out wrong, but you know what I mean.)
I think that men who can manage it should marry, if they choose to do so. I do see an important role to play as a husband and father in the fight to restore men’s rights. In Catholic society there were the celibate (priests, monks, nuns) who played the most important role through prayer, etc. However, the vocation of marriage was necessary and laudable, for society could not continue to exist without new members. I am not saying MGTOWs are the priests of our society. I am, however, saying that for every five kids traditional Catholics have “liberals” have one or none.
“They demand the right to dominate women. Now I know I see myself as concerned about men’s rights, but I don’t need to crap on women and dominate them. I don’t hate women. I’m happy with equality with women that act as consequence taking adults”
Let’s leave aside emotionally charged words like “dominate”. I don’t need to dominate my wife. I need her to fulfill her role in our marriage so that I can fulfill mine. I need her to raise my children so that they are not in the clutches of daycare harpies. Nor do I hate women. I have a strong aversion to feminists, which most of today’s women are. I don’t really like to associate with women other than my wife, though I used to be one of those guys who had tons of female friends. I don’t want to “crap” on women. I want women to be what God and Nature made them to be, which is primarily mothers. Feminism has done great damage to women, too, by perverting them from their natural end.
Like or Dislike:
7 
10
Antiphon – ”It depends on what you mean by “reformed”. Do you mean: How can we teach our daughters to give blowjobs to beta males?”
To that, and all your other clownish attempts at shaming, if you don’t and can’t understand what I meant be “pathologies”, then there is really no need to address you further. Women in the west today are not only (mostly) promiscuous, but they are also spoiled, over-indulged, drug and alcohol abusing, over-spending, and entirely mis-focused on what is important in life. They would make horrible wives for most any man. Many of the rest have completely let themselves go physically, and have become obese or have mutilated themselves to the point that few men would find them attractive.
And, once they are married, those laws which you mock us for trying to reform, give them the power to turn a man’s life into a living Hell.
But smug Traditionalists cannot bring themselves to face that reality, so they must try to miscast it issue as MRA’s believing that they are owed blow-jobs? That’s why you and your meaningless ilk will always be useless and unimportant to the Manosphere at-large.
All, and I do mean “ALL” you can do is try to shame. You cannot “sell” your value-system nor your lifestyle choice to 99.99% of the population. The most you can hope for is to wall yourselves off from that same world you’d try to ridicule MRA’s for taking issue with.
” My rhetoric is not empty. I have put my money where my mouth is.”
Sort of seem the equivalent of Charlie Sheen screwing up, losing millions, making an ass of himself and yelling “Winning!”.
You’ve accomplished next to nothing, and it can all be undone in short order if your wife decides she’s had enough. You’re a sitting duck for DV charges. And, should your girls ever get a taste of the feminists world that you are afraid to face-up to, how can you be so sure that they will not reject your heavy-handed authoritarianism, and instead turn to a much more powerful authority – the state – which would happily throw your control-freak ass in jail, and give your family a protective order to keep you away for good.
I always have to chuckle at you tough-talking “my wife knows her subservient place” types. You don’t know just how bad it can become for you at her whim. The laws, which you mock us for wishing to reform, give her the upper-hand if ever she wants it. If you have to use threats and insults to control her, you’re on even more tenuous ice than those whose wives at least choose to submit.
Good luck with all that “Winning!” your doing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
2
Welmer (If you’re following the discussion):
While I was away from the Spearhead this Like/Dislike thing was introduced. Though it seems rather silly, it is a useful gauge for how your argument is going. I do, however, protest strongly that when enough people dislike your comment it is suppressed. Can’t men tolerate facing or even seeing views with which they disagree?
I can only surmise that it came about as a way to get rid of “trollish” comments, but one wonders whether the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. I was making legitimate points. I wasn’t being offensive nor trying to undermine the discussion. Rather I was trying to contribute, though my thoughts were unpopular.
On the whole, though, the site is still topnotch and one of the few that I visit anymore.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
16
@ Antiphon May 24, 2011 at 13:23
“America is a nation founded on Liberal principles. Everyone who participates in the national life of this society is a Liberal (from Washington to Jefferson to Roosevelt to McCarthy to Kennedy to Reagan to Scalia to Ginsburg to Clinton to Bush to Obama).”
What exactly do you mean by “Liberal principles”?
Please be encompassing and precise in your definition, so that we may see how all of these people have acted in the same way in order to advance the same goals.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
““whatever group Antiphon identifies with, doesn’t really have the same concerns as ‘us’, doesn’t want the same things and doesn’t share the same way of going about life. We just don’t have much in common, that I can see.”
I guess I just wonder who the “us” and “them” are. I am a man who is concerned with all of the things you mention (though I don’t know what “fra” stands for…). I see them as a blight on society. I am a man who deals with women. I just see a different solution. ”
FRA – False Rape Accusation. This is a BIGGY. Ooops it clearly didn’t occur to anyone that this was unknown to you (the TLA that is). Unfortunate as it could have changed the path of some messages.
I wasn’t trying to pigeonhole ‘you’ or ‘us’. As Andybob said Tradcon / SoCon labels don’t exist outside the USA. And general attitudes to religion really seem to be different between the USA and…most other ‘Christian’ countries. The UK actually has Gandalf as it’s head of the CofE (joking…mostly, but check out a picture or two). It’s very hard to admire such a weak-arse institution. But then he’s trying to hold together the USA-ite protestants with the African ones – massively differant cultures and attitudes – it ain’t easy.
So, ‘us’ was the massively diverse (as you pointed out) spear-pointers / MRAs / MGTOWs.
‘You’ was, whatever you (Antiphon et al) wish to call yourself (there was no slight intended, or taken, I believe).
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
slwerner:
“Women in the west today are not only (mostly) promiscuous, but they are also spoiled, over-indulged, drug and alcohol abusing, over-spending, and entirely mis-focused on what is important in life. They would make horrible wives for most any man. Many of the rest have completely let themselves go physically, and have become obese or have mutilated themselves to the point that few men would find them attractive.”
I’ve told you what I would do and am doing. YMMV (as they say).
“You’ve accomplished next to nothing, and it can all be undone in short order if your wife decides she’s had enough. You’re a sitting duck for DV charges. And, should your girls ever get a taste of the feminists world that you are afraid to face-up to, how can you be so sure that they will not reject your heavy-handed authoritarianism, and instead turn to a much more powerful authority – the state – which would happily throw your control-freak ass in jail, and give your family a protective order to keep you away for good.”
Yes, that remains a possibility. This is one of the reasons I hate feminism. I have, however, seen my approach work in other families. I think that you’d be surprised how powerful a draw faith is, even if you can only view it as Marx did.
Game also has its place here. Just as some chick at a bar that you game into having consensual sex with you could wake up in the morning and tell the police you had raped her, so too could a wife gamed into being more traditional wake up one day and tells the police about your DV, etc. etc. etc. Nevertheless, male leadership in marriage answers the same needs in women that the PUA does. There is such a thing as married game. There always has been.
So, yes, I am taking a risk, but so is Roissy. Perhaps I have more to lose. But perhaps I have more to gain.
“The laws, which you mock us for wishing to reform…”
I don’t mock you, I just don’t think that this is the best way to approach the issue for reasons I spelled out above.
“If you have to use threats and insults to control her, you’re on even more tenuous ice than those whose wives at least choose to submit.”
But, she did/does choose to submit–I just had to help her along. I don’t recall insulting her that much, if at all, or threatening her. Usually, she threatened and insulted me, but that is mostly passed now.
Like or Dislike:
5 
12
Reader:
I laid out a brief definition (search for Sarda y Salvany) above.
It boils down to this Liberals think that there is nothing beyond them, outside them, or that transcends them. There is no God (really) and if there were His laws don’t matter. All that matters is what 51 out of 100 people say. Man is the measure of all things.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10
Gentlemen:
It has been enlightening and enjoyable to converse with you. I spent the better part of my workday thinking about the things you wrote and writing my responses. There’s very little new to add to what went above. My position has been made as clearly as I can make it. I appreciate those who were generous enough to understand it and apologize to those who were unable to do so. So unless something really provocative comes up, I bid you a good weekend. I suspect we shall cross swords again.
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Gendeau:
“FRA – False Rape Accusation. This is a BIGGY. Ooops it clearly didn’t occur to anyone that this was unknown to you (the TLA that is).”
Thank you. I, of course, knew the concept just not the abbreviation (or TLA, whatever that means!).
All best to you. Though we won’t probably get together for that beer, I shall raise my glass to you tonight.
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
“Welmer (If you’re following the discussion):
While I was away from the Spearhead this Like/Dislike thing was introduced. Though it seems rather silly, it is a useful gauge for how your argument is going. I do, however, protest strongly that when enough people dislike your comment it is suppressed. Can’t men tolerate facing or even seeing views with which they disagree? ”
Funnily enough, the upy / downy things don’t often hide men’s posts, some mangina trolls yeah (no this isn’t a dig).
The reason I LURV them is that Lara’s witless “I like puppies” comments don’t usually survive 20 viewings before they’re gone.
Some of your comments are unfortunately being affected. I do mean unfortunately, as in your case, I think that you’re making some good points. I don’t agree with many, but they don’t deserve being hidden.
In fact, in ‘our’ thread (‘yours’ and ‘mine’) I think there’s some convergence (see you in LV). More on aims than means, if you see what I mean…
BTW, if you think you have mellowed, you should see the old thread (or maybe not, you may not believe that it was me)
It’s late here, so I’m off “a dieu” as they say round here
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
TLA – three letter acronym for a Three Letter Acronym
and cheers.
btw
“a dieu” was a particularly appropriate bye bye remark (acording to the other thread)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Antiphon:
“I bid you a good weekend.”
Wow. It totally felt like Friday when I wrote that. Imagine how bummed I felt when I remembered its only Tuesday.
So, I bid you a good midweek!
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
Kay,
Why should men care about society, and women, when neither cares about men?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
“Life sucks and then you die!” ?
WTF?
Keerist! Maybe “life is hard” is true for people who believe it…and so put up with shite they should walk from. For example, the guy who says: “You are ugly and mean and make my wood balsa-fy, Maude. But since life is all about suffering, I’ll marry your harridan arse anyway.”
QED.
Well, I don’t buy it. Nor the myth that “relationships are work.” Why would a sane person work at a job s/he probably hates, then go home to a living situation that was more of the same? If relationships aren’t fun or fulfilling, eschew them!
Sure, some guys marry because it’s the only way for them to get regular poonani. Tant pis. And too many effed-up religions that celebrate suffering (like an S&M club!) convince their hapless male parishioners to do matrimonial penance. And maybe some even benefitted from societal supports feminism has since demolished. That is, maybe when the culture honored family men, and made divorce rare, guys bought into the arrangement.
But what if those men could have had beaucoup sex with bodacious babes without having to make all the moves; or worry about STDs; or fear pregnancy?
What if men had equal rights to NOT become parents and could just walk away after getting a “paper abortion” (signing parental rights away)?
The 196os social revolution was supposed to make sex fun and plentiful. It looked like Eden was returning. Instead, feminists re-created Victorianism and demonized men. They passed “no fault” divorce laws that faulted men. And claimed biology was no longer destiny while shrieking that women “owned” children. And so on.
Again, keerist!
But imagine if everyone had had better, more frequent, and happier sex from teenhood to whenever? Might some men have wanted to, at some point, partner with a woman? Having sown wild oats, they might have wanted kids if divorce were equitable, not sticking HIM with all the burdens and no benefits?
Why would such marriages NOT work? Why would they have to entail suffering?
Yet having repeatedly pooped in the partnering punchbowl, feminists now wine, er whine, that savvy men no longer fill their cups.
C’mon, hombres: do guys pick their pals, mates, and buddies based on how much they suffer around them? Do normal, healthy men want friends who are arse-holes? It’s not complicated (except when feminists get their hands on the controls that tradcons give them): Most guys want simple things. Like respect, freedom, a good job, and relationships that are both fun and meaningful.
Still, if you believe life is suffering, welcome to Feminism! It WILL fulfill your darkest dreams.
Fortunately, millions of modern men are waking up, leaving fembotulism in the dust. They refuse to be gelded by guilt, shaking off the Suffering Harness.
So what have tradcons done for men-in-general, save offer membership in the Tapped-Out Omegas fraternity? Hazed and henpecked themselves, they now want new manginas to join and “feel their pain.”
And who are these battery-carriers of the Dildocracy? Did tradcons create rock-n-roll? Do they please their women orally? Inhale wacky-tabacky? Go on Outward Bound treks?
Or like Shakers, do they get off by repressing their boners for Jesus? And want others to do the same?
When I think of tradcons I think of “American Gothic.” That is, dour sourpuss people. If that’s “adulthood,” count me out.
Tradcons had their chance for eons. They failed. Now they want to bring us back to the Land of Failure.
Good luck with that.
We don’t need sexually-repressed, ill-read, unworldly bozos “leading” modern men. President Reagan was their poster-boy, after all: an anti-male dweeb. He was probably more interesting as a shill for products on early TV …and later when he had Alzheimer’s. Can’t you just see him, chasing Nancy around yelling: “Ronnie wants to poke you with his pee-pee, Mommy!”
Tradcons are as trustworthy as child-molesting priests. In reality, and regarding the real lives of real men, they care not a jot. They are all hot air and Bible-thumping (and porn-watching, too, no doubt. After all, pre-Internet, the largest number of “adult book stores” was in the Bible Belt).
They want us to emulate their stultifying, twisted lives. Don’t!
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
> ” I respect those who have religious beliefs. But, like Gendeau, that respect had better be returned to those of us who don’t.”
In a nutshell, feminism’s epic failure. Fembots disrespected males big time, then expected guys to respond to their testicle-kicks by having us kiss the bulbous, boil-covered, bile-dripping arses of its idols.
Like a fetid fever, their (bowel) movement lasted a too-long while, felling many a mangina (Darwinism at its best!). Now? The Masculine Enlightenment is underway.
We won’t burn the witches, of course, though they deserve it. We will do worse, consigning them to lonely latter years, surrounded by cats, dog-eared copies of “wimmins’ words,” watching whatever replaces Oprah. Meanwhile we will enjoy their daughters…provided the latter recant feminist indoctrination.
Free at last, free at last. Good gawd a’mighty, we be free at last!
Like or Dislike:
9 
7
> “I spoke to X who is a plain Jane and thinks that she is a queen and who has a crappy job in an office (but she thinks she is successful and a ‘career woman’)”
Tell it, bruthaman! There is great truth in what you say.
I know many women who are basically cubicle drones and LIKE it. Some are lawyers and sech-like, but basically they all like the regularity, monotony, predictability, and SAFETY of their jobs. And think they are doing big, brave things.
(And of course, they never feel compelled to spend any of their superior earnings on mere men).
I also know many men in similar positions who don’t like what they do, but hardly brag about it. To most men, “work” is rarely about “filling their souls with meaning” while on the job. Sure, most wish for more interesting employment, but know that’s rare…and so look for meaning and pleasure outside work.
Now let me be clear. I’m not saying guys shouldn’t “follow their bliss.” Just that men (familiar with war, coal-mining, etc.) are more likely to know and accept REALITY. In fact, much of civilization has been built on men “sucking it up;” hence guys justifiable anger when coddled womyn hector them to “be a man!”
It also irks to hear women chatter enviously and endlessly about how men “have all the power.” And how “soul-deadening” traditional women’s work (in the home) is, as if it’s hell on earth. They have no idea what truly hard work is. Plus, as I said, they seem to prefer safety over innovation. That is, they are risk-averse.
It’s like when feminists say, “If a male boss is assertive, he gets respect. But when a woman acts the same way, she’s called a bitch.” Well, actually, no. Most men call that male boss an “asshole”… though probably not to his face. They save that for bull-sessions at the bar after work.
This is a key error of reality-ignoring feminism: they assume that guys, socialized to stuff feelings (TRANSLATION: Guys who complain get reprimanded, shunned, fired, name-called, etc.) must have no complaints. Feminists assume that guys who show up regularly to work, and don’t complain publicly, must LOVE their jobs.
Similarly, feminists assume that men who didn’t vociferously and verbally oppose feminism’s many lies/distortions must agree with wimmin’s take on things. They fail to see (or more likely, admit) that gender-specific penalties unfairly impact males.
A single female with an affirmative-action MBA who spends her days doing rote things in an office built by men can’t be compared to a married working-stiff male who hates his job but must feed his family. The latter has many more chains holding him back. So I cut him, not her, some slack. Plus nowadays, a divorced guy who loses his job after telling his boss to stuff it will likely be jailed if unable to pay child support.
It’s like hearing a female “soldierette” brag about her military “service” when WE all know she met lesser standards to get in…and SHE knows she joined because she’d never have to do the one thing men must (and why the military exists in the first place): risk life and limb closing in mortal combat with the enemy.
Finally, can you image an oil rig roustabout filing a complaint to his female supervisor that the woman who served him coffee during canteen-break looked at the bulge his panted pee-pee caused?
Compare that to a female “captain” in the military filing a sexual harassment suit when the civilian janitor whistles at her!
Feminism was founded on such double-standards.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
oddsock May 23, 2011 at 13:34
Meanwhile Week of Rage: Spreads Worldwide
Yes OddSock. They are trying to get civil wars going. They will likely succeed too.
DevilDog May 23, 2011 at 15:04
Brilliant post….
Makes my best ever comments!!
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/mid/1087/threadid/752/scope/posts/Default.aspx#752
Anonymous Reader May 23, 2011 at 15:10
* Marriage 2.0
* False rape accusations
* False DV accusations
* Affirmative Action
I’m eager to see where and how you’ve solved the above.
AR. Any man who takes the time to read the book written thought me and uses it does not face any of these issues. The one most difficult to deal with is ‘affirmative action’ because guvments are simply taking job away from men and giving them to women knowing that women are far more compliant slaves than men.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
“it’s just that they weren’t allowed to. I think their gratitude was genuine”
Aren’t you saying their gratitude was forced (by ‘they weren’t allowed to’)? How do you jump from this to the conclusion that it was suddenly genuine?
A forced anything is never genuine. A forced gratitude is not genuine gratitude. Only when no one forces you to do it in -any- way (peer pressure being one way of forcing people to do things, for example) – in other words, there being no negative consequences of not doing it whatsoever – and you -still- choose to do it is it genuine.
Forced good is no good. With free will, there is always the ability to choose between good and evil. If you are always forced to choose ‘good’, it’s not genuine good. If you have the choice of evil, but you still choose good, it is genuine. (Choosing good for alterior motives can be considered evil in this case to simplify the example)
So, how do you figure something can be both forced and genuine at the same time? Isn’t that more like.. women’s way of thinking? (having two completely contradicting opinions simultaneously without seeing anything wrong with it is very common for women)
- Vortac
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Auntie Pheminizm
am I having a ‘senior moment’ (mental wobble)?
My recollection is strongly disagreeing with stuff you said a few days ago (can’t remember what), but here you’ve made point after point that I agree with strongly, or at least don’t much disagree!
Did somebody put acid in my beer at lunch again? dammit, I hate it when that happens.
I’ll be paying more attention next time you post, bien vu
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Gendeau
Auntie Pheminizm
am I having a ‘senior moment’ (mental wobble)?
My recollection is strongly disagreeing with stuff you said a few days ago (can’t remember what), but here you’ve made point after point that I agree with strongly, or at least don’t much disagree!
Did somebody put acid in my beer at lunch again? dammit, I hate it when that happens.
LOL. I was thinking much the same. I started to think magic mushroom season had started early and I was illuminating hahaha.
I wonder if the original Aunty Pheminism just made a slight change in his/her name and posted afresh? Could it be in the S and Z change ? Oooooh ! A mystery to solve.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Gendeau
Nope. The Aunty Pheminism name is the same therefore if it’s not acid or magic mushrooms ? It can only mean one thing ,,,,,,,we have been invaded by,,,, THE BODY SNATCHERS !
URGENT MESSAGE TO ALL : Aunty Pheminism has been taken over ! You will notice the difference immediately. There is now strong evidence of logic and common sense in her new posts. Even a hint of empathy. Spookey !
BEWARE !
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
OH NOES, not THE BODY SNATCHERS!!
Thanks for the confirmation, I couldn’t be bothered to check, but had the feeling I’d slipped into a parallel dimension / twilight zone / beyong the outer limits (again, third time this week).
Whoever ‘she’ is, ‘she’ is on fire
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Antiphon has to be a woman.
No man blabs that much.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
DevilDog,
Women are naturally inclined to want a marxist society because it benefits women. Modern day liberalism has been hijacked by old-fashioned marxism. According to today’s liberals, women are to be worshipped like goddesses. Women drink the kool-aid instead of looking at politics in a logical manner.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
“Hymowitz believes that most men want families, albeit after the age when women want them, and she says that men will have to “man up” if they want to have those families. ”
Kay is feigning concern for men’s needs and wants. Like she cares. Please. She’s enjoying telling men what to do and enjoying the support she’s getting from a bunch of frustrated women who have dessicated corn-husks in place of their uterus.
I think I’ll skip it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
Worry not, my fellow brothers.
Feminism will gradually disappear right before your very eyes, just as our own population will fade before we even knew what hit us.
The future for America is Mexico. White people will simply be be bred out of existence. You can thank feminism for that.
Case closed. You already lost.
Growing Hispanic Population Is Spreading Across U.S.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/25/growing-hispanic-population-is-spreading-across-us
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
You think a load of women are going slowly hysterical desperate for millions of unmotivated guys to ‘man up’ and cure their baby rabies right now. Wait till the NON HORMONAL, safe, 100% effective, totally reversible, cheap, ubiquitous male birth control pill comes on stream. They’re going to go ballistic+++!!!
http://www.israel21c.org/201006238085/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men
Oh, and don’t kid yourself lots of women aren’t aware of this and talking about it in hushed perplexed tones in private, BUT maintaining a HUGE public silence on something that will be catastrophic for them vis a vis having power with men.
From what I can see feminists of all stripes especially are, contrary to ALL other aspects of sexuality and reproduction (think: the Vagina Monologues, Cosmopolitan etc) absolutely wall to wall unusually totally SILENT.
This tells me something VERY big is up.
I can’t wait for the day when it is men, not women, who are the reproductive gatekeepers, and force women to support them politically.
Imagine –
Plus goodbye paternity fraud.
Plus goodbye to women ‘forgetting’ to take their pill and ‘accidentally’ getting pregnant.
Goodbye to reproduction on her terms. You men will be in the driver’s seat where you deserve to be because you do all the dirty, shitty, risky stuff that keeps civilization going.
Oh, and don’t worry about women rushing off en masse to get in-vitro fertilization either. Sperm banks can’t meet current demand as it is. And the idea of fusing two female eggs to create a pregancy? – tough shit sisters – You can’t do it without restricting genetic diversity (That’s where the male chromosome comes in – no pun intended!) thereby risking humanity being prone to pandemics from simple bugs, let alone super-bugs which many in the medical profession say are just around the corner.
Women importing ‘studs’ from third world countries?
No.
Apart from the odd one here and there, they’re hardwired to be hypergamous. As such they always marry up, not down.
I want this desperately.
I want to see the day when empowered with the male birth control pill and DNA paternity testing men en masse have women over a barrel.
Imagine millions of conversations where the man is saying – “You want kids to cure your baby rabies? – Well sweetie, you better help men overcome misandric laws and conventions first or it’s no deal.
Massive amounts of false rape and DV accusations with impunity – goodbye.
Unilateral ‘No fault’ divorce – goodbye.
Alimony and child support – goodbye.
Male only conscription – goodbye.
Affirmative action for women only – goodbye.
The legalistic pussy pass – goodbye
etc etc.
Male technology freed women up with modern day governance, all manner of modern day conveniences and the female birth control pill. It was only a matter of time before men invented technologies to free themselves up.
This is the ’4th wave’ I’m waiting for.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
Addendum to last post -
Oh, and one more thing.
I reckon the reason why over the last few years women’s dress style has become sluttier and sluttier, indeed they’ve even marched for the right to parade around looking slutty! isn’t something they’ve really acknowledged.
The REAL reason women want men to be in a state of CONSTANT sexual arousal is because they have seen the day of male reproductive empowerment coming and wanted to snag guys ASAP with a pregnancy ON THEIR TERMS.
They’ll never admit it though, but will bullshit themselves and you with all manner of hamsterish rationalizations for dressing like whores and calling it ‘attractive’, ‘glamorous’, ‘comfortable’ etc etc. For being so terrible fake too with their hair colors, make up, padded this and that, high heels, boob jobs, false eyelashes, etc etc…..Billions of dollars industry falseness.
How utterly and pathetically ridiculous they are!
How ironic then that they’ll often say their sex is the more real and self aware sex!
Here’s a little social experiment to do.
Just raise the male birth control pill and your keenness for it’s arrival as a topic of polite conversation in the presence of women.
I’ve done this several times and the results have been exactly the same every time – the women try hard to contain their emotions – I can see them straining and straining like drowning men – but I can easily see that inside they are literally going to pieces – their world is falling apart – and they appear so stunned they are speechless – or if they do speak it is in almost lifeless tones uttering nonsense like someone who senses they’re defeated yet desperately struggles to put up some kind of pathetic death throes last intellectual fight. This too tells me this is BIG.
No. Fuck that last sentence – THIS IS HUGE!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
Well, the facts are in and a few things are clearer.
When the person posting as “Antiphon” claims that trad-cons and men have similar goals, and therefore should be allied, what that really means is this:
“You men should all live like me. If you will join me in churchinaity, joining my own personal church with me as leader, then you, too, can have a submissive wife and obedient children”. Assuming that the bit about wife and children is true (but we only have his word for it, and he’s still one phone call away from a false DV accusation), it isn’t any form of being allies, working together, etc.
It’s a call to join him. There’s no actual compromise; he orders every other man to be like him, full stop. The person posting as Antiphon isn’t interested in actually working to end the reign of error of feminism, because he’s sure that demographics will fix the problem. Great for anyone under the age of 20, not so good for those older than that but under 30, pretty much worthless for anyone older than 30. Because demographic changes take generations, for obvious reasons.
The person posting as Antiphon also is anti-American. This person clearly desires to overturn the Constitution and replace it with a religious monarchy, a theocracy in substance if not in form. To put it mildly, this ain’t gonna happen, and in any event it would not work. Americans do not wish to live under any theocracy. Some would take up arms to prevent it.
The person posting as Antiphon is clearly in favor of dictatorship, no matter how he squirmed around, for by finding various dictatorial regimes to be acceptable (and yes, “Antiphon”, you even claimed that life for ordinary folk was more tolerable under the Fascists and Nazi’s, too late to deny it) “Antiphon” admits that to be true.
Therefore, this particular “Antiphon” appears to be a crank. The actual poster Antiphon who was something of a regular here a year or so ago did not post such bizarre things. Therefore, I must state that I suspect this “Antiphon” is someone using that name — not the same person.
The most likely candidate is a blogger who fancies himself a French knight, and who openly calls for a Catholic monarchy. Likely he is fond of the same writers as well.
So what we have here is a false flag, drive-by posting by a trad-con crank.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Anonymous Reader:
I have enjoyed few comments as much as your last one. With bated breath I read through your comment following the twists and turns of your deductive logic, wondering what identity this new “Antiphon” has misappropriated. Imagine my mirth when I found out at the end that I had stolen my own identity!
I am the same Antiphon as the old “something of a regular”. My political and theological opinions have not changed. If anything, as I mentioned to Gendeau, they have perhaps mellowed a bit. I was flattered, however, that you remembered me, though perhaps you give the “old” me more credit for uncrankiness than I deserve.
Now to address a few of your points, which I find easier to do in separate comments (lest one get too long for Peter South).
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Anonymous Reader:
“It’s a call to join him. There’s no actual compromise; he orders every other man to be like him, full stop.”
I don’t call everyone to join me. I was merely pointing out a different way of contributing to the MRM and achieving its aims. The original reason that I entered the discussion is because someone–and I honestly don’t feel like scrolling up to find out who–suggested that traditionalists have an agenda akin to feminists, etc. I am saying as a man trying to live in a more traditional mode (not a “tradcon” whatever that is), that in fact my agenda is more closely allied with MRAs, though as Gendeau charitably put it, I am starting from a different place and following a different path.
The number and nature of the attacks made on my position forced me to argue in a certain way and touch on sometimes irrelevant things.
Here is my main point. I think that there are two ways to achieve the aims we both want. Men either need to avoid the marriage trap altogether or men need to get into a traditional marriage and raise traditionally minded children. The whole PUA thing seems to me to be a waste of time, though it is no doubt very fun. I don’t think it is furthering the cause of men.
MGTOWs have a great deal to contribute to the MRM. They have the necessary distance from women and time to devote themselves to thinking and writing about men’s issues. As a Catholic I strongly believe that there is an important place in society for celibate men (and women) even outside consecrated life. Marriage is for those who cannot resist it–it is not the preferable choice.
Men in traditional marriages–and despite your doubts there truly are men in this situation–have less time to devote particularly to these things. We are, however, learning a great deal about the particulars of the male situation in our day. MRM “doctrines”, if you’ll permit the term, allow me to see other dimensions of the value of raising traditionally-minded children. I see other reasons to tell my sons to avoid marriage unless they cannot–if they cannot I have a better idea of the kind of woman they need to avoid. I see other reasons to keep my daughters out of the workplace–not just for their own well-being but in order to keep them from contributing to the war on men.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
Anonymous Reader:
“The person posting as Antiphon isn’t interested in actually working to end the reign of error of feminism, because he’s sure that demographics will fix the problem.”
On tactics, we perhaps disagree (though you haven’t made clear how exactly you propose to go about achieving your aims). I do not see, for me, the point of writing letters to congress–simply because I have no faith in our government or its apparatchiks. I hope to carve out a little space for myself where my family and I can be, if not isolated, at least insulated. In that way the MGTOWs and I are doing the same thing–I’m just doing it with a wife and children, if you see what I mean.
I repeat: I am working to end the reign of error (did you really mean “error” instead of “terror”? If so, quite clever! Really.). I am doing so in a small way, perhaps, merely within my own family. There is a demographic side, though I hardly suspect that we will overwhelm society with our numbers. But let me give you some anecdotal evidence for this argument.
My wife had 7 bridesmaids. They have produced 10 children (and 1 abortion) and that is probably it. She is also in a group of Catholic homeschooling mothers that coincidentally numbers 7 (not counting her). They have produced 40 children and counting. Now, there are more women like her bridesmaids in America than the Catholic homeschooling crowd. But, who is more militant? Who is taking better care to prepare their children to fight?
Demographically we will always be a minority, but a militant, tightly organized, and vocal minority. You don’t need a majority to influence society. MGTOWs (united and focused) + traditional families (united and focused) = a pretty strong anti-feminist force. Will it change things in the next ten years? No. Feminism was a couple centuries in coming. It will take a while to eradicate.
I am trying to make a place in the MRM for men like me. I am also trying to get other traditionally-minded fathers to understand that an MRM exists. It seems like a union between them is a no-brainer. You don’t have to accept my faith, though it is worth pointing out that the rise of feminism occured in a world of waning Christian influence.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
Anonymous Reader:
“The person posting as Antiphon also is anti-American. This person clearly desires to overturn the Constitution and replace it with a religious monarchy, a theocracy in substance if not in form. To put it mildly, this ain’t gonna happen, and in any event it would not work. Americans do not wish to live under any theocracy.”
“The person posting as Antiphon is clearly in favor of dictatorship, no matter how he squirmed around, for by finding various dictatorial regimes to be acceptable.”
“The most likely candidate is a blogger who fancies himself a French knight, and who openly calls for a Catholic monarchy.”
Now on to politics, which is really irrelevant to much of this discussion, though you have been driving the conversation that way.
I’m not “squirming” about dictatorship. I don’t “prefer” dictatorship, though I could certainly support it if it sincerely promoted a return to a more properly and naturally ordered life. I do find, e.g. Francoist Spain to be better than Rooseveltian America. Hitlerist Germany, probably not so.
I think Catholic monarchy of the French, Spanish, and Austrian variety among others was the best government the world will likely see. I am well aware that it is no longer possible and esp. so in America. To say something is good or best does not magically make it appear, nor does it mean that we could or even should restore it.
To love Catholic monarchy makes me no more a crank than you with your love of the American constitutional republic. Do you seriously think that Obama’s America (or even Bush’s or Reagan’s America) is the Founders’ America? Do you really think the Constitution is the law of the land anymore? The Constitution was written for a racially homogeneous group of people who paid at least lip-service to Christian values. America is now filled with foreigners, marxists, anti-white militants, anti-western activists, etc. They are the ones calling the shots nowadays and, believe me, there is no going back. America’s constitutional republic is a dream as much as Catholic monarchy. Just because Sean Hannity hasn’t gotten the memo doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
As for my “hating” America. I know America. My family, one of the founding families of Springfield, Mass., was here long before 1776. I had an ancestor who fought for indepedence–he was the fourth generation of my family in America. My family has fought in every major war (except WWI and Vietnam). I love this land. As a Catholic, however, I find the atheism of the constitution hard to stomach. The Liberalism of the Founders and the foundational documents, I detest, as well, and blame it for the state that we are currently in. Our Lord tells us to judge the tree by its fruits. I’m doing so.
My advice to you: open your eyes. Question the prejudices you hold dear. Try to see whether they are actually based on anything other than some sentimentalism masquerading as patriotism. You’ve questioned feminism, though it reigns supreme. Question other things, too. Question everything. That’s the way to find the truth.
Previously you suggested that the short duration of Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal were strong arguments against their brand of government. The USA is self-destructing after only 200 or so years. Catholic France: ca. 1200 years; Catholic Austria: ca. 1100 years; Catholic Church: ca. 2000 years and counting. Call us when you catch up.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
Antiphon,
Actually, I am glad to see you back. Of all the insightful things I read on TS, one of your comments last year stood out: I converted ONE woman from a feminist to a traditionalist. What have you done?
If you’ve never read it, I would suggest reading Belloc’s How the Reformation Happened for its retracing of how the Church saved what could be saved in Western Europe as that society broke down at the end of the Roman Empire. Indeed, you might read Tim Case at LewRockwell.com for the article on how Christianity overtook the Roman Empire: slowly, without a sword, but with a superior organic method of growth, with people given hope of a better future and a more fecund population. I think you are correct: this is the only way that the Liberal Feminist state is overcome.
You did not mention one thing about your children: did you enumerate them to “Social Security?” The Feminist State is sterile, and requires defections and funding from the non-feminist society. Social Security is the way of transferring wealth (that is, productive children!) from the faithful to the mammon-worshippers (and I mean Mammon in the sense of “more,” the exhaustive demon who never lets you rest with “this is enough.”). I think the Amish have the right idea, but maybe when I finish my trilogy over at InMalaFide you’ll appreciate my recommendation on how children can turn a profit for the large family (see the first part here without losing any money to a social security system that drains families.
You wrote: I think Catholic monarchy of the French, Spanish, and Austrian variety among others was the best government the world will likely see. I am well aware that it is no longer possible and esp. so in America.
You’re deadly wrong on the French monarchy. The ideal form of government was the Holy Roman Empire, as it allowed free cities to establish themselves under the protection of a weak centralized emperor. It was the epitome of subsidiarity, something never seen in France or Spain, with their centralized monarchies. Ironically, the USA followed the HRE model for much of its existence, something that was a result of its chief city, New York, being founded as a sort of city-state by a branch of that Holy Roman Empire.
If you care to discuss, comment over at InMalaFide, and I’ll ask Ferdinand to send me contact info.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Women have the most to lose by playing shitty with men. Think about it:
She wants babies but her fertility dramatically decreases with age, as does her looks.
If guys are desperate they can still pass on western women and hook up with a beautiful Asian chick.
There are going to be a fuck load of angry women who missed their opportunities by turning their noses up at men and not embracing their sexuality by choosing to hate men. It’s so fucking sad, in some ways, since men *do lose* a bit too.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
If she expects maning to include dropping those so-called juvenile and purile activities, she’s asking something that men have done historically. Why should young adult males give up video games and such when our fathers happily kept their outside pursuits like hunting, fishing and golf while staying happily married? Are women going to give up pedicures, hair salons and romantic movies? Are those somehow more meaningful than men’s pursuits?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
You think a load of women are going slowly hysterical desperate for millions of unmotivated guys to ‘man up’ and cure their baby rabies right now. Wait till the NON HORMONAL, safe, 100% effective, totally reversible, cheap, ubiquitous male birth control pill comes on stream. They’re going to go ballistic+++!!!
http://www.israel21c.org/201006238085/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men
————————————————————————-
Male birth control wont change our evolved emotions. Males will always have stronger feelings towards females, who will have stronger feelings towards children, and towards their chosen male (but not males in general).
What you need to overcome this is for men with those emotions to die out and whatever minority of men have less emotions in that sense to breed the next generation. But once you think that way, the very divisions between ‘men’ and ‘women’ become nebulous.
However, it would be a good thing anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You bring up a good point in that the author seems to live in a bizarre fantasy world where everyone went to Brown or Cornell or Harvard and that we all live in major urban centers on either the East or West coast, doing graphic design or blogging for a living…This is a trend I notice a lot in articles all over the web, they seem to cater to a small niche that in their minds becomes the entirety of the populace.
The problem with a lot of these authors is that all they know are their own imaginations and limited sets of experiences. I hate to break it to her but NYC isn’t the center of the universe, just ask the kid in high school in Texas or the kid in Iowa.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is my main point. I think that there are two ways to achieve the aims we both want. Men either need to avoid the marriage trap altogether or men need to get into a traditional marriage and raise traditionally minded children. The whole PUA thing seems to me to be a waste of time, though it is no doubt very fun. I don’t think it is furthering the cause of men.
Actually, I tend to agree with this. Others, like zed, have said something similar. We just disagree on the odds involved, for a start. And you really should be aware that by taking your position as a Traditionalist Catholic, you are saying that you take your stand with the “Thinking” Housewife and a lot of other tradcons. You’re saying that the shifting sands of churchianity are a better guide to reality than repeatable, provable, science; in other words, that men who don’t believe in your churchianity should nevertheless go along with your ideas because some old man in Rome says so, regardless of what facts may actually be.
MGTOWs have a great deal to contribute to the MRM. They have the necessary distance from women and time to devote themselves to thinking and writing about men’s issues. As a Catholic I strongly believe that there is an important place in society for celibate men (and women) even outside consecrated life. Marriage is for those who cannot resist it–it is not the preferable choice.
See, that right there puts you at odds with other Catholic traditional /conservatives. They like to order men to just marry, and reproduce, and that’s it. So you have an issue, but it isn’t with us, it’s with your fellow churchians, traditional conservatives.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“The person posting as Antiphon isn’t interested in actually working to end the reign of error of feminism, because he’s sure that demographics will fix the problem.”
Antiphon
On tactics, we perhaps disagree (though you haven’t made clear how exactly you propose to go about achieving your aims). I do not see, for me, the point of writing letters to congress–simply because I have no faith in our government or its apparatchiks. I hope to carve out a little space for myself where my family and I can be, if not isolated, at least insulated. In that way the MGTOWs and I are doing the same thing–I’m just doing it with a wife and children, if you see what I mean.
Not really. By including a woman in your house, you are constantly at risk of being arrested in your own bed, or served a paper at your work prohibiting you from going home (or being within 300 yards of your own house), because your loving wife picked up the phone in a fit of pique, dialed 911 and said “My husband yelled at me. I’m scared” and the entire divorce industry went to work, starting with the false accusation of Domestic Violence. As long as the laws are what they are, every man is a criminal – some, like you, just have not been caught yet. A man who truly is MGTOW has no woman in his house, and therefore cannot be hit with a false DV attack. He can still be falsely accused of rape, of course, just for breathing while male.
And so can you. Your wife could be deprived of her husband at any time. You could be arrested in your office tomorrow, for a false rape accusation, accused by a woman you barely know, or whom you have never even met. And as long as those laws are in effect, you are vulnerable.
Your solution, to hunker down and do nothing to change the legal structure, has some flaws — the divorce / false rape industry may not be interesting to you, but you might be interesting to them. Because both industries require, shall we say, constant input.
I repeat: I am working to end the reign of error (did you really mean “error” instead of “terror”? If so, quite clever! Really.). I am doing so in a small way, perhaps, merely within my own family. There is a demographic side, though I hardly suspect that we will overwhelm society with our numbers. But let me give you some anecdotal evidence for this argument.
My wife had 7 bridesmaids. They have produced 10 children (and 1 abortion) and that is probably it. She is also in a group of Catholic homeschooling mothers that coincidentally numbers 7 (not counting her). They have produced 40 children and counting. Now, there are more women like her bridesmaids in America than the Catholic homeschooling crowd. But, who is more militant? Who is taking better care to prepare their children to fight?
And if one of those homeschooling mothers decides to Eat, Betray and Love her hubbie, then the odds of others within her circle doing the same go up. I can’t put a number to it, but it’s been shown that divorce spreads through social networks, and women almost always are in the middle of such networks. So you are basically saying that somehow, churchinity makes you immune to the dangers of divorce, even though actual statistics show US Catholics get divorced at about the same rates as evangelicals do (35% vs 38%) and both groups are not far from the national average of 40%. Yes, yes, you don’t call it divorce, you call it an annullment, and you have to pay the church to get one (so there’s financial incentive there, too) but the effects are the same.
When the monstrosity of marriage 2.0 begins to crumble, you’ll be safer. But assuming that you are safe because your wife is at home doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. So scorning those men who choose to chip away at the feminist edifice isn’t going to win you many friends around here. I’m sure it will get the “thinking” hausfrau to say nice words about you, if that matters.
Demographically we will always be a minority, but a militant, tightly organized, and vocal minority.
You don’t know that. And given some of the fads that the Catholic church has accepted over the years, such as “goddesses”, and Communists as liberators (“liberation theology”), etc. it seems to me you are assuming quite a lot. For a start, you are assuming that every one of your children will remain a conservative Catholic; I’ve lived in areas where Catholics are a majority, and can safely say that such an assumption is wildly optimistic.
You don’t need a majority to influence society. MGTOWs (united and focused) + traditional families (united and focused) = a pretty strong anti-feminist force. Will it change things in the next ten years? No. Feminism was a couple centuries in coming. It will take a while to eradicate.
But you don’t want to change any laws now. You don’t want to even lift a finger to try and make any difference now. Looks pretty fatalistic to me.
I am trying to make a place in the MRM for men like me.
Doesn’t look like that. Looks like you want the MRM to fall in line behind you. Ain’t gonna work that way.
I am also trying to get other traditionally-minded fathers to understand that an MRM exists.
Good luck on that. In my experience, the more traditionally minded a man is, the more he puts women on pedestals as his moral betters. Such men tend to be White Knights, and they cannot abide the slightest criticism of Woman. Catholic tradcons are often the worst, maybe it’s all that business with Mary, I can’t say. But again, good luck on that, in my opinion you will need it.
It seems like a union between them is a no-brainer. You don’t have to accept my faith, though it is worth pointing out that the rise of feminism occured in a world of waning Christian influence.
The problem with traditional conservatives (trad-cons) is they cannot as a rule see anything wrong with women. They put them on pedestals, and that’s why tradcons have actually gone along with the feminist agenda, because feminists can always use shaming tactics on tradcons with pretty good success. Tradcons don’t like to be told that women are angry, they leap to fix that anger and make their women haaaapy.
Roissy tells more truth about women in any given week than any tradcons have ever done, in centuries.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
“The person posting as Antiphon also is anti-American. This person clearly desires to overturn the Constitution and replace it with a religious monarchy, a theocracy in substance if not in form. To put it mildly, this ain’t gonna happen, and in any event it would not work. Americans do not wish to live under any theocracy.”
“The person posting as Antiphon is clearly in favor of dictatorship, no matter how he squirmed around, for by finding various dictatorial regimes to be acceptable.”
“The most likely candidate is a blogger who fancies himself a French knight, and who openly calls for a Catholic monarchy.”
Now on to politics, which is really irrelevant to much of this discussion, though you have been driving the conversation that way.
Look, you are the one who brought up politics via that whole Catholic monarchy thing. You don’t seem to know much history, either.
I’m not “squirming” about dictatorship. I don’t “prefer” dictatorship, though I could certainly support it if it sincerely promoted a return to a more properly and naturally ordered life. I do find, e.g. Francoist Spain to be better than Rooseveltian America. Hitlerist Germany, probably not so.
But Francoist Spain came into being after a truly nasty civil war. And that civil war was the result of a number of factors, some external (Communist efforts) and some domestic (very high rates of illiteracy, economic stagnation, etc.). The Spanish civil war of the 1930′s was in some ways a continuation of the 19th century civil wars (Carlist), all of those resulting to some degree from the Catholic monarchy basically living in the past. And a pretty unpleasant past it was.
I think Catholic monarchy of the French, Spanish, and Austrian variety among others was the best government the world will likely see.
Ok, let’s unpack that. The Spanish monarchy, upon unifying Spain late in the 15th century, issued an order demanding every human being in Iberia become Catholic. The Conversion order (Conversio) was very blunt: convert, or leave the country. The third choice was death. But of course, that wasn’t sufficient, because the Spanish monarchy then fretted that some number of Moslems or worse yet, Jews, were only pretending to convert. So they created the office of Inquistor, who was authorized to ask questions in any way needed. The Spanish Inqusition is something every one should know about, because it sought to create a pure Catholic state via torture and what we now call terrorism. I suppose to you it must be counted a success, as Spain remained Catholic for a long time — it isn’t now, of course, and with a birth rate of around 1.35 Spain is heading for demographic collapse. So even terror, torture, and murder of dissidents has limits.
France took a somewhat different approach to religious purity, allowing Jews to live in segregated areas. The French Catholic monarchs were never able to kill off all of the non-Catholic churches, but not for lack of trying. They eventually realized that making galley slaves out of dissidents was better, because the galleys were used for both commerce and war in the Med, and so working dissidents to death was a way to get something out of them, vs. torturing them to death in the Spanish style which was wasteful.
It’s no accident that during Vichy France, Jews tended to be safer in those areas that were not especially Catholic (Huguenot, Communist), whereas in traditional Catholic areas they often were handed over to the Nazis for deportation to the death camps. That’s because of the way Catholic monarchs have treated Jews for centuries, to be blunt.
So two of the Catholic monarchies you so admire are not all that different from the Communist states that you hate. In both cases, ideological purity was enforced from the top down by diktat, using various forms of violence (arrest, torture, imprisonment, forced labor until death, execution in prisons, mass execution in the streets, etc.) in an attempt to achieve the goal. In both cases, censorship of ideas was critical – another function of Inquistors was to look for forbidden books, and arrest those who found them. Burning the books was pretty much a given, burning the owner not so much, imprisonment or forced labor until death worked as well.
So you are like a Communist who comes in here telling us all that Comrade Stalin was a really great guy, and good men did well when he was in charge. See why it’s not going to get you too many allies?
I am well aware that it is no longer possible and esp. so in America. To say something is good or best does not magically make it appear, nor does it mean that we could or even should restore it.
To say something that caused a great deal of death, agony, and despair is “good” boggles the mind.
To love Catholic monarchy makes me no more a crank than you with your love of the American constitutional republic.
Would you care to revise that statement, in view of the sketch of history above?
Do you seriously think that Obama’s America (or even Bush’s or Reagan’s America) is the Founders’ America? Do you really think the Constitution is the law of the land anymore? The Constitution was written for a racially homogeneous group of people who paid at least lip-service to Christian values. America is now filled with foreigners, marxists, anti-white militants, anti-western activists, etc. They are the ones calling the shots nowadays and, believe me, there is no going back. America’s constitutional republic is a dream as much as Catholic monarchy. Just because Sean Hannity hasn’t gotten the memo doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
To argue in favor of returning to a medieval social system makes you a crnak, frankly.
As for my “hating” America. I know America. My family, one of the founding families of Springfield, Mass., was here long before 1776.
Would those be your ancestors who came over from Europe (Italy, IIRC) about 100 years ago? That’s your previous statement, and you did not write “some” ancestors, you wrote “ancestors”, as in “all of them”. So you are now contradicting yourself pretty obviously.
Why should I believe anything you say from now on?
I had an ancestor who fought for indepedence–he was the fourth generation of my family in America.
How can he be the 4th generation when you previously stated your family arrived about 100 years ago?
<i.My family has fought in every major war (except WWI and Vietnam).
How can that be when you previously stated your family arrived right before WWI?
I love this land. As a Catholic, however, I find the atheism of the constitution hard to stomach. The Liberalism of the Founders and the foundational documents, I detest, as well, and blame it for the state that we are currently in. Our Lord tells us to judge the tree by its fruits. I’m doing so.
Then you desire the kind of theocracy that led to the Inqusition.
My advice to you: open your eyes.
Same advice right back at you. Look honestly at what you are saying you support, unblinking, unvarnished, and tell me why you want it.
Question the prejudices you hold dear. Try to see whether they are actually based on anything other than some sentimentalism masquerading as patriotism. You’ve questioned feminism, though it reigns supreme. Question other things, too. Question everything. That’s the way to find the truth.
If your dream came to pass, and a Catholic monarchy installed, then for me to question everything would lead to my death in a torture chamber. Because unlike Galileo, I’m not famous or rich, so my death would be of no importance, save in terms of another “heretic” dealt with.
I suggest that you question everything, starting with the notion that any man can be infallible. One of the hallmarks of dictatorships – left or right – is the notion that the Leader Is Infallible. It’s also part of your church. So I guess if the Pope decided tomorrow that 2+ 2 = 5, you’d go along with that, right? One of the things George Orwell famously said was that freedom is the right to say 2 + 2 = 4 . Because it’s true. And truth is one of the first casualties of ideological terror. Orwell saw the Spanish civil war up close, he knew a thing or two about ideological terror. Do you dare to question everything, as you urge me to do?
Previously you suggested that the short duration of Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal were strong arguments against their brand of government. The USA is self-destructing after only 200 or so years. Catholic France: ca. 1200 years; Catholic Austria: ca. 1100 years; Catholic Church: ca. 2000 years and counting. Call us when you catch up.
Events move faster now than they did in previous times because communications are faster. If your precious Catholic monarchs had the tools for murder that Stalin and Hitler had, they would have been able to utterly depopulate entire regions of Spain and France, instead of only partially doing so. However, despite the best efforts of the church, literacy spread, and people read books that the church didn’t want them to read. The corruption of the elites became more and more obvious. Seems to me the spectacular failure of the French monarchy is nothing to brag about, given that it led to a bloodletting even worse than previous civil wars.
You desire tyranny, a totalitarian despotism. Feminists may put me in jail, but they won’t burn me alive or send me to die in some forced labor camp. So given a choice between the soft Marxism of feminism, and what history shows your Catholic monarchies do, as much as I despise feminism I’ll take it over your holy Inquisition any day.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
quote:
“whereas in traditional Catholic areas they [Jews] often were handed over to the Nazis for deportation to the death camps.”
That is incorrect. Italy a very catholic country had the least numbers of Jews handed over and protected them the most. As a person who has studied WWII for the last 20 years (I got a Ph.D in History along the way) I’ve spent years tracing all these details out.
Also as a Jew myself whose family was from Italy –I know this to be true from my father’s own accounts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 1 trackback }