The Discourse Coalition of Feminists and Conservatives

by Featured Guest on October 17, 2012

By Henry Laasanen

The big problem with the advancement of a men’s movement is the “coalition” of feminists and conservatives.

It’s hard for men’s rights activists to win by voting for democrats or republicans, because they both have the same goal: protection of women.

In this article, I will try to explain the coalition of feminists and conservatives using the sociological concepts of “story line” and “discourse coalition”.

Story lines

People acquire information from simple story lines. Story lines set people in “subject positions”. The story line is accepted because it feels just about right.

There are three important subject positions: the victim, the villain and the hero.

In the conservative story line we have the traditional story, where the damsel is in distress, captured by the “bad men” and saved by the hero, who is played by the white knight. The conservative story line also has the subject position of “unmanly men” who are whiners (who could be an MRA) and who lack the courage to save the woman.

Then there is the victim feminist story line, where woman is the victim of men or patriarchy and feminism is the cure, supported by the ideology of power feminism.

Discourse coalition of feminists and conservatives

If two story lines are similar enough, they can form a “discourse coalition” to advance the same political goal.

The conservative and feminist story line gives people same kind of subject positions. Women are the victims and men are the bad guys, only the hero’s subject position is different.

Although conservatism and feminism have many different goals, they can unite in discourse coalition to protect women from men

The “New Gentleman”

I have used the concept of the “New Gentleman” to describe the kind of man who is the product of both discourse coalition conservatism and feminism.

In the old times we had John Wayne, who saved the woman. The New Gentleman doesn’t save just one woman, he fights for the sake of feminism. He has succeeded in combining the story lines of conservatism and feminism.

Most of the top male politicians could be branded as some kind of New Gentleman. By supporting feminist’s ultimate goal of protecting women, they get votes to win elections. So, becoming the New Gentleman is a rational decision for the aspiring politician.

The New Gentleman is the new hegemonic form of masculinity.

The problem with the masculinist story line

Masculists have hard time explaining their story line to the public. In masculist story line men are the victims, the villain is an unequal society (or even feminism) and the hero is masculism. For the majority of people, the masculist story line just don’t feel right, even if the facts are behind it.

Masculist are in an ideological no man’s land. By positioning men as victims, it’s hard to appeal to either men or women.

The masculist story line is so different from conservative story line that it is difficult for masculists and mainstream conservatives to unite, and putting men in the unmanly subject position of whiners (which is hard to avoid) doesn’t really help.

The advancement of the men’s movement against the discourse coalition of conservatism and feminism is a tough nut to crack.

{ 76 comments… read them below or add one }

freebird October 17, 2012 at 03:46

It’s pretty simple:Restore equality before The Law and the rest will fix itself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
freebird October 17, 2012 at 03:48

Secondly,lacking due process men will simply avoid the pain of injustice by boycotting women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JFinn October 17, 2012 at 05:36

Also:

- The coalition of daughters and fathers(who think their sons need to toughen up but their daughters need to be protected.)

- The coalition of sons and mothers(who kicked out their fathers and turned their sons against them.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Mr. Fabulous October 17, 2012 at 06:05

I was thinking of something along these lines the other day. A lot of MRA’s blame ‘The Left’ like we’re all in some big conspiracy against men and fathers or something. ‘The Left did this, The Left said that, blah blah blah’. Sound exactly like feminists.

Anyway, the irony of it all is, is that feminism would not be where it is today, if it wasn’t for Right Wing conservatives and their own attitudes towards women. Feminists and The Right hold a lot of the same views on a lot of different issues. Maybe it’s time for MRA’s to start acting like grown men and stop pointing fingers and trying to split the Manosphere down political lines.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Somoliquent October 17, 2012 at 07:00

Institutional and Cultural Misandry :- It is not really so complex a phenomena to analyze and to understand actually.

White males are a demographic majority amongst all males in these here genderist lands. White males, more so than non-white ones, are the most vigilant and most unquestioning of elastically defined and arbitrarily enforced women’s rights amongst all males.

Accordingly to white males, there is to be no defined beginning nor any defined end to where or when women’s rights engage or disengage from other peoples rights. This keeps white males, a majority, in an attractive and powerful position over every other male, given their assumed powers to police, to enforce and to define what is, and what is not women’s rights.

Now what are the objectives and the purposes ? :-

In order to keep white females living at a level and a style to which they became accustomed, through years of non-white slavery, segregation and apartheid, it became necessary to cast all females, not just white ones, as oppressed. This sly method makes white-male chauvinism so much more sublime, covert and democratically uncontentious.

Now today, has been established a situation wherein trillions and billions in public resources, institutional time and official effort to coerce private behavior constructs and fabricates a narrative of a white women’s oppression, within all women’s oppression that never ever really was.

How many non-white women ever received up to a million dollars from sexual harassment suits or divorce settlements ?

If white women are to be compensated for receiving only 70 cents in the dollar, what is to be the compensation non-white women receive for acheiving only 30 cents in every 70 cents in the dollar white women receive ?

Why are white women not made by force of law to pay compensation directly to non-white women for their differential oppression rate, in the same way all men are made to compensate all women?

Or how many non-white women on affirmative action, got employment on Capitol Hill, State Judiciaries, in Goldman-Sachs, Meryl-Lynch, NASDAQ, Harvard University or any other elite establishment ?

What the average non-white woman gets free or cheaply from so called women’s rights, is poisonous contraception, injurious abortion, bastardized children, minimum wage jobs in local-government, freedom to prostitute herself and future generations of the animal classes whom will lie even beneath the underclasses.

So readers should be aware of the dirtier game within a game being played out in the name of women’s rights by both conservative and socialist white males. It can even be argued that the obsessive compulsion with feminism alone, of white males, whom dominate the mens movement as a racial majority is also an exercise in political interferometry and gamesmanship.

If males are to really be emancipated, their focus must be on men, male culture, male attitudes, maleness, masculinity and male behavior 100% of the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ron October 17, 2012 at 07:12

How is this for a story line?

Most men are a bit of victim and oppressor. Your typical blue pill man is often both the victim of this sick abuse and the enabler/encourager of the same.

This is because most men have nearly zero compassion for other men, they have no compassion because they have precious little they see in common with one another. (love of football is not enough of a commonality to risk your life and fortune for another). This is because they themselves have no real principles that they believe in or that speaks to their soul/conscience. They may have plenty of rules or obligations, but no … poetry … that stirs them.

For all his faults, Alexander Hamilton couldn’t wait to get into battle, because he understood what a man is. When is the last time you heard of a neo-conservative thinker that had that kind of life in him? You had a great deal of that back then, because they had something that they believed in.

We also have true oppressors. They may have some things in common, mostly bindings that work on the darker sides of the ego. Such as the academic classes, the political class, military-industrialists – this includes all industrialists who serve the military-industrial complex at the top of the food chain, such as Agrobusiness (Cargill, largest private corporation on the planet), Weapons manufacturers, Pharmo (which by the way makes a huge percentage of their profits on treating diseases in the food industry caused by the industrialization of corn, livestock, it’s called a “military industrial complex” for a reason), etc. All these people have things in common among them. And the main thing they have in common is power, the aquisition, expression and retension of same at the expense and deception of the public. It is the “expense” meaning “to the detriment of the public” that is the main binding they have in common.

To this you could also add those middle class nobodies who’ve joined the various masonic orders (these are similiar to the above, but they just suck at it), luciferian sociopaths at the top of the food chain, new age faggots from the academic class, etc.

The commonality that all the above have is mostly a few thinly veiled ideological justifications for what is nothing more than a power grab among various tribal groups I described above. They aren’t “muhuhahah” mustache twirling villains (at least most aren’t). But in the end they amount to the same thing since they push an oppressive system that deprives the majority of men of both freedom and the realization that their freedoms have been stolen.

While their commonality gives them a shared purpose to work together to everyone else’s detriment, their “causes” are completely unsatisfiying bullshit. Don’t bother trying to tell me that anyone feels better about their life after lying in a coffin with ribbons tied on their genitals and reciting their entire sexual history. Or whatever bizarre shite these empty morons get up to. Note, I’m not here to get into whatever fucked up conspiracy exists, who knows, and who cares? But when you see something like this:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/jimmy-savile-a-prime-example-of-an-entertainment-industry-abuser-protected-by-the-elite/

It’s pretty clear something is very wrong at the top. My point is, you can’t do something like protect a Jimmy Savile and feel satisfaction with your life. It’s like what Joe Rogan says – no man feels great about masturbating.

The hero in this story is every man that wishes to acquire for himself power and the expression of power in a manner that is in line with his conscience. He has no interest in harming other men, on the contrary he longs desperately for a brotherhood of men whom he can engage with and work with to achieve cooperative goals. To that end, he openly encourages other men to join him in a transparent, socially considerate manner to acquire and express power. Whether with him or with other like minded men who wish to establish a brotherhood.

The religious orders in the US used to fullfill that role, but today they are all so emasculated at this point, that even where they are not actively corrupted they are worse than useless.

But this is not a new problem. The US, and every other group of men have had this difficulty. “A nation is born stoic and dies epicurean” The corruption that is within each of us, our darker impulses must be recognized and channeled under the guidance of our conscience. As we fail in that, the failure finds itself shared among those around us, until we have a general failure of manhood and conscience.

I see things as beginning to come to a head. What with the recent Middle Eastern wars, and the imminent threat of nuclear exchange between the West and the East. The Western coalition of Europe, the United States, Saudi Arabia, India and Israel, against a coalition composed primarily of Iran, China, Russia, Pakistan, Syria and Turkey. I don’t think all the players have chosen sides, and I strongly suspect some players will find themselves ejected from both groups in this game, but that seems to be how things are shaping up. I mention this, because at this point it should be clear that in the event of such a war the old institutions will break under the strain.

This is because we are dealing with a comprehensive financial and social collapse in the West. Saudi Arabia and Israel don’t seem to suffer from the same cultual problems, but there is no doubt that much like the United States, there is also a weariness in both the same of the failures of the culture to provide a meaningful existence that men must have to live and breathe.

Well, anyway, that’s my rant. Hope it was entertaining at least!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 17, 2012 at 07:26

Maybe men should quit voting.
That’s a good way to draw attention. If men do not vote, then the politicians will want their vote and start courting them.
Just a thought..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
ron October 17, 2012 at 07:29

One more note:

I didn’t bother mentioning women in either the role of oppressor, victim or hero. That is because by nature, women do not initiate. What they want is ultimately simple: A dominant man to acquire them and master them. She’ll settle for a sociopath, but she’d prefer a prince (think Harrison Ford). But what she cannot stand, what she hates with every last cell in her body is a man that does not use his dick (I mean that metaphorically and literally).

This is because she does not have a dick. She craves and wants dick and all that it represents, she knows exactly how much emotional power it has because she can feel it in her cells. She loves his ability to GO HIS OWN WAY and tell society to SHOVE IT. She especially loves the man that can do, and revels in doing, things HIS WAY. That is because emotionally she is chained to the approval of her idiot sisterhood as she is in many ways helpless to stand on her own. She knows in her heart that her sisters are petty, back stabbbing, two-faced morons, but what can she do? Marry an easily manipulated social idiot like Frank Kennedy? Fuck that noise. She wants an ass kicking Rhett Butler who will take her like a man!

So when she sees some pasty white “beta” not use that masculinity, she hates him in the same way a starving ethiopian wants to kill some anorexic american princess.

(note: I’m a recovering pasty white beta)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ahamkara October 17, 2012 at 07:56

That’s my solution… avoid the women. They can stew in their juices with the men who are dumb enough to take up with them. If that’s how they like it, then let them be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster October 17, 2012 at 08:31

The masculist story line is so different from conservative story line that it is difficult for masculists and mainstream conservatives to unite,…

The issue is that the “masculist” is following the feminist victimhood narrative. The masculist is trying to squeeze the “privilaged white male” class into all the other special identifibale groups that the privilaged white male supposedly oppresses. True, that will never work as the the special identifiable groups won’t allow it for obvious reasons.

While traditional chivalric intent is still a part of older generation conservatives (like the rather obscure Bill Bennett, and a few others many liberal MRA’s like to site as examples), the younger strain of conservatism is more objectivist, libertarian, individualistic – – and eschews victim group-think of any kind. When you conquer liberalism and it’s politically correct orthodoxy, you overcome feminism.

Conservatives view men and women and blacks and hispanics and gays, as individual citizens first and blocs of voters second. To the extent conservatives pander to special identifiable groups at all, it’s because liberals force their hand to do so. Liberals need to divide the electorate into seperate classes to then unite them against conservatism. Conservatism offers the individual among a protected class no safe harbor other than her own individual efforts to succeed and contribute. To liberals this is unfair because the privilaged white male class and his perceived bias against those not like him, keep the protected classes from ascending.

Dinosaur Conservatives that “man shame” and seek to protect women from lecherous fools and “dead beat dads”, are not the REAL problem. The REAL problem is the unfetterred march of marxist/feminist liberalism and the transfer of men’s wealth to women’s health via government redistribution.

The REAL problem is government enforced egalitarinism of the genders, with the female half being decidedly “more equal than” the male. This is in ObamaCare, the Paycheck Fairness Act, Title IX, VAWA, affirmative action and so on; all policies that conservatives oppose and Feminist, Inc. with their liberal acolytes fight for.

And some tired old third rate SoCon like Bill Bennett saying “men need to man up and marry women” is a problem? Really?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sun October 17, 2012 at 09:30

I always considered MRA to be a Liberal movement. Feminism is a Liberal movement, period. Any movement that seeks “equality,” or at least professes it, is by definition a Liberal movement.

Yes, that means most conservatives are an older form of liberal with a tendency to have some right wing ideas. If given power and time, a more right wing society would emerge.

While Feminism and the “modern” Conservative movement both “unite” under some superficial ideals like “protection of women,” the author fails to explore the idea further.

They have very different reasons as to WHY the protect women.

If we look at it from a Traditionalist standpoint, protection of women served a very real purpose. Our survival as a group/tribe/country depended upon it. Men being more biologically suited for war and hunting (stronger, aggressive, etc) utilized themselves as such for thousands of years. Our brains evolved that way via evolutionary psychology.

Women being the physically weaker sex, that becomes even more vulnerable when pregnant or with child, do not tend to do that. They tended to stay at home and take care of it while the man was away. That way she did not have to hunt and risk her life.

Modernity over the last century has pretty much removed the last bastion of this way of life.

Basically the “Conservative (Traditionalist)” like to make an “organic” society. Where every person has a role and benefits the society. A conservative believes “saving women” is a natural male instinct that most men posses. A smart society utilizes such instincts. MRAs for the sake of equality either try to deny/reject it, or admit but want to diminish it, as it creates inequality and thus hurts men.

Feminist do not go about it this way. They, unlike conservatives don’t believe in putting the entire society first. They believe in putting the individual and woman first before anything else. The idea that women have been historically the oppressed class makes them want to “save women” from the patriarchy. They want equality and attempt to do so by looking at history, lifestyle, etc, in a very particular way.

The Guest author is wrong in his assumptions about Feminist and Conservatives “uniting.” If they do unite, it would be under very superficial ways, often turning a blind eye to the underlying rift between the two movements. Feminism despises the way conservatives want to save women, because to Feminist this insinuates, patriarchy and male privilege.

The way the two groups want to “save women” is entirely different and stems from different ideas and they do so under entirely different reasons. If they talked to each other they would despise the reasons to why the want to “save women” and reject the others point as what they actually want to “save.”

Most Conservatives want to protect women, but I really don’t know if they want to protect Feminism. They believe that Feminism has created a really existence between men and women.

Sorry, I just don’t agree with you Guest Writer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sun October 17, 2012 at 09:44

It should be at the second to the last paragraph:

They believe that Feminism has created a really *bad* existence between men and women.

Sorry for the typo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell October 17, 2012 at 09:51

Price, this is brilliant–a distilled, logical view.

Over time, the truth always wins out. To manage one’s expectations properly, American men need to give up on America. America needs to be viewed as the gangrene leg of the world. The gangrene leg needs to be amputated and isolated from the rest of the body (the rest of the world) .

American women – rotten, entitled beasts that have destroyed their husbands, children, and society through extreme selfishness.

American lawyers, politicians, and courts – have aided the beasts in this destruction. This group is complicit in the destruction of men and children’s lives.

American men – victims of this crime.

The rest of the world – potential victims of the crime.

When I tell this story line, one question I often get is “Do you hate women? ”

My answer is “no. I love women. But I hate American women. And American women are not really women anyway, they are beasts.”

The problem is that too many of the MRM groups are trying to reverse policy in America. This is not likely to occur. Instead, inform the rest of the world what is really going on in America. Then big countries like China, Brazil, and Russia will hopefully pick up on it, and act in such a way as to bring America and its Ameriskanks in an economic way without any violence.

America’s economic decline and defeat is the repressed American man’s victory; especially if he is prepared to live outside the system.

Living within the system is contributing to your own and other men’s slavery. The American system is the enemy to American men, and men all over the world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
universe October 17, 2012 at 09:52

Good stuff.

Framing an issue or problem in context goes a long way and yours are done well.

Yet, I only or merely wish to add to your, what I find, sound expositions. We all build off each other, right.
Then there is the victim feminist story line, where woman is the victim of men or patriarchy and feminism is the cure, supported by the ideology of power feminism.
– The victim or traditional damsel card (damsel in no distress today I like to say) has not only acquired seemingly bottomless pursestrings from known and unknown sources to enact power feminism but same have also played the numbers game. And in numbers high enough such that politicians pay attention to, address and accomodate thousands citing the feminist led social narrative. The same can be accomplished with men’s concerns. Regardless of whether attention to “women’s” concerns has had an 80 to 150 year jump there’s no time like anytime to begin speaking the men’s side. (Humanity isn’t going anywhere soon).
In the old times we had John Wayne, who saved the woman. The New Gentleman doesn’t save just one woman, he fights for the sake of feminism.
– Yup. We’re beginning to see that.
It would be helpful explaining to these types that women in John Wayne’s time and before were people of a different sturdier calibre with somewhat more real and stark survival based dangers. Yet, many managed to survive individually without a dominating safety net. Unlike what we see from many today.
Masculist are in an ideological no man’s land. By positioning men as victims, it’s hard to appeal to either men or women
– I’ve wanted to write the following for a while but waiting for the right moment may never happen. Explaining the male side of a culture’s any era isn’t or doesn’t have to encompass victim grievance. We require telling it like it is. Both men and women experience(d) factors of life and survival conditions common to both but in ways exclusive to them only. Common women experience the environments of any period’s development that they had to contend with as did commoner men. Now we are going to more relay the men’s side of what life looked like then and now. Now because we may have to. This should speak for itself. If not, keep speaking it anyway.
The advancement of the men’s movement against the discourse coalition of conservatism and feminism is a tough nut to crack.
– I don’t think so. You, Mr. Laasanen, just did.
For the nuts with a thicker shell – it’s a time and numbers game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo October 17, 2012 at 10:24

Great point of view. I agree wholeheartedly; it is a tough nut to crack.

Crack it we must though!

The difficulty we face is largely natural first, and autocratic second.

What I mean is that first we must overcome the stereotype of man as provider, and then as supportive but strong silent type for a partner. They paint us as a superman, a boyscout if you will. We need to be the anti-hero, not necessarily in a Kratos God -of-War sense; but more like the Count of Monte Cristo; a nobody in the public sense who strategically overcomes great odds. In other words, a mortal, human, ordinary man; who does extraordinary things. We can do that, but only if we are orginized!

Secondly, we must first take down the feministic autocratic government that lords it over our heads collectively; but subtly which is smart in order to maintain the view of “victim” in the public eye. Only then can we try and bring back a more stable form of government, whatever that is, followed by trying not to make the same mistakes feminists committed once they stole the reigns. It is true what the old adage says: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That is an almost impossibly high bar; the key word is almost.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Titanium October 17, 2012 at 10:29

True – witness the debate last night. Both candidates pandering to the female voter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 11:37

This is a very concise, and easy to understand, summary of a large problem. It adequately explains the traditional-conservative / social-conservative reaction to the massive injustice done to men over the last 40 years. It explains the general support for such laws as the Bradley “deadbeat dad” amendment, VAWA, shield laws for alleged rape victims, sexual harassment regulations, and so forth.

It also explains the reaction of tradcons / socons to the ongoing, deliberate, mistreatment and maltreatment of boys and young men – “just suck it up and take a lap”. As if being brainwashed for a dozen years by a feminized school system can be somehow compensated for with sheer will power.

It also explains why appeals to tradcons/socons in terms of justice are useless – because their version of “justice” boils down to “what ever is good for Woman is just”. Never mind that contradicts their own holy books – tradcons and socons in the majority of cases are “conservative” only in comparison to 3rd stage feminists. The “conservative” position all too often can be boiled down to what was progressive/liberal/feminist some 35 years ago.

Excellent article.

In order to fracture this discourse coalition, it will be necessary to upend the world view of the tradcon/socon. Appeals to justice are apparently useless. How should we then proceed? It isn’t as if these people have a conscience that can be disturbed – none of them find the death of Thomas Ball to be anything other than “bizarre suicide”, for example.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
dejour October 17, 2012 at 11:43

@freebird

Restoring equality before the law is a big part of it, but not the only part. There are also social forces that prevent men from taking full advantage of the law.

eg. Russel Brand not taking Katy Perry to court to get 50% in their divorce. It would have seemed unmanly.

Women and children first isn’t just a legal concept, it’s more a social one.

Men aren’t prevented from becoming teachers by laws. It’s widespread mistrust of men around children that makes the profession unwelcoming.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Tom936 October 17, 2012 at 11:56

There are three important subject positions: the victim, the villain and the hero.

And Feminists and Socons only disagree about who gets to be the hero. Feminists aren’t going to let any man have that role.

It’s stupid of the Socons to ally with the Feminists. If lust for the hero role is what drives them, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. No matter how much te Socons “earn” the hero role, the Feminists will write them out of it. Feminists are incapable of gratitude.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 12:01

Keyster
Dinosaur Conservatives that “man shame” and seek to protect women from lecherous fools and “dead beat dads”, are not the REAL problem. The REAL problem is the unfetterred march of marxist/feminist liberalism and the transfer of men’s wealth to women’s health via government redistribution.

That march is certainly unfettered by any of the leading conservatives on the public scene, whether Dinosaur or not. Or did Sarah Palin recently change her position on Title IX?

The REAL problem is government enforced egalitarinism of the genders, with the female half being decidedly “more equal than” the male.

And that real problem has been enacted for over 30 years, with the White Knighting help of plenty of men and women who claim to be “traditional”, “conservative”, and so forth. Apparently opposing abortion is all it takes to be a “conservative” at National Review, or at American Spectator, or in the Republican party for that matter.

This is in ObamaCare, the Paycheck Fairness Act, Title IX, VAWA, affirmative action and so on; all policies that conservatives oppose and Feminist, Inc. with their liberal acolytes fight for.

Except that those Dinosaurs will line up with the feminists and their liberal acolytes time after time after time to fight for most of the above. Seriously, Keyster, name a conservative who has fought against VAWA in 1994, against Title IX, against affirmative action. John McCain? Orrin Hatch? GW Bush? Jeb Bush? The onlly reason the GOP opposed VAWA re-authorization this time around is the attempt to make it apply to illegal aliens, so far as I can tell. If there is any opposition to VAWA from any leader of the GOP that is based on any principle, such as “equality before the law”, or the Constitution, or even an attempt to defund the feminist machine, I am not aware of it. Maybe you can show us this principled opposition?

And some tired old third rate SoCon like Bill Bennett saying “men need to man up and marry women” is a problem? Really?

Bill Bennett can get his writings published at any conservative magazine, online or paper, any time he wants. He’s published multiple White Knight books. He can get face time on CNN, FOX, other networks any time he wants it. He can get voice time on any conservative talk show any time he wants it. He has is own radio program that is nationally syndicated. His writings are cited with approval by a whole bunch of other tradcon/socon writers, bloggers, and just plain people. I can walk into a whole bunch of churches and ask mothers about Bennett’s “The Book of Man” and likely they’ll know about it.

Bill Bennett is clearly a major opinion leader for tradcons/socons. This is a fact, whether you like that fact or do not like that fact. That’s why he matters. But if you can name a masculinist conservative who can get face time, air time, published space in National Review, Commentary, American Spectator, etc. then by all means, let us in on his name. Because I don’t see him.

What I see is an endless parade of White Knights, always eager to help feminists pass more “bad man!” laws, and always ready to help cover up bad behavior by women. But maybe you are aware of some traditional conservative writers who have been published by the conservative press on, oh, the topic of divorce theft, or false rape accusations, or other topics the androsphere cares about. Show them.

Or just tell me what the tradcons/socons had to say about Thomas Ball.

I wish that tradcons/socons would just stop helping feminism. That would be a good first step. It is too much to ask that they take the lead in opposing feminism and misandry, but if they would just become neutral that would be good.

As is is, the majority of socons/tradcons are at best performing the same function in the anti-feminists debate as Candy Crowley did during last night’s debate….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed October 17, 2012 at 12:21

There are three important subject positions: the victim, the villain and the hero.

In the conservative story line we have the traditional story, where the damsel is in distress, captured by the “bad men” and saved by the hero, who is played by the white knight. The conservative story line also has the subject position of “unmanly men” who are whiners (who could be an MRA) and who lack the courage to save the woman.

This is also know as the “Drama Triangle”, – with the 3 roles designated as “victim, perpetrator, and rescuer.” There are really only 2 roles in this psychodrama – the 3rd role is simply a plot device, a prop for the melodrama.

The drama involves the interaction between the suffering hero (or martyr) and the conquering hero. Both are attention-seeking strategies. There are two payoffs for both of them. The suffering hero gets attention (“heroic single moms”, anyone?) as well as demonstrating the shadow power of manipulating the conquering hero into rescuing her. The conquering hero also gets attention, but it is based on respect and admiration for his capability. Frustration, hostility, and anger usually form the stimulus for the conquering hero fantasy – somewhat like the armchair quarterbacks who could have easily won the big game if they had set down their beers and gotten out of their La-Z-Boy and replaced that “incompetent boob” on the field.

Of these, the “rescuer” is the least obvious role. In the terms of the drama triangle, the “rescuer” is not a person helping someone in an emergency. It is someone who has a mixed or covert motive that is actually benefiting egoically in some way from being “the one who rescues”. The rescuer has a surface motive of resolving the problem, and appears to make great efforts to solve it, but also has a hidden motive to not succeed, or to succeed in a way that they benefit. For example, they may feel a sense of self-esteem or status as a “rescuer”, or enjoy having someone dependent or trusting of them – and act in a way that ostensibly seems to be trying to help, but at a deeper level plays upon the victim in order to continue getting their payoff.

The key to understanding the rescuer/White Knight role is that it is pure drama – it is constructed to give the appearance of helping, without actually rendering any real benefit. The vice presidential debate was an example of someone who has spent his whole life living on drama.

Since the White Knight is not actually doing anything effective, at times the script flips and the victim/martyr flips to the perpetrator/villain and goes after the rescuer for failing in his rescuing role – “wimminzs STILL only make 75 cents for every dollar a man makes” – leaving the White Knight no choice but to double down in his apparent attempts to do “something.”

No one rescues a White Knight once he falls off his white horse.

It is a sick little game, but there are some major payoffs in it for people – which is why they keep playing it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 13:13

Keyster: tell me where I can find a conservative who ever talks about this:

http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/12/993.full

Excerpt:
Model 1 presents the age adjusted effects of sex on the risk of suicide. Divorced men were over eight times more likely to commit suicide than divorced women (RR = 8.36, 95% CI = 4.24 to16.38). After taking into account other factors that have been reported to contribute to suicide, divorced men still experienced much increased risks of suicide than divorced women. They were nearly 9.7 times more likely to kill themselves than comparable divorced women (RR = 9.68, 95% CI = 4.87 to 19.22). Put another way, for every divorced woman that committed suicide, over nine divorced men killed themselves.

“Divorce” is a major risk factor for men’s health. It is not a risk factor for women’s health. Discuss.

The closest I have come to finding anyone conservative who even mentions this elephant in the room is this man, at National Review online. Even though he’s a law school grad, he went to the sandbox, and spent time as part of the Cav in Iraq.

Summary:
Soldiers and Marines are committing suicide in higher numbers. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is often pointed to as a cause, but it appears that infidelity is a big factor. While the man is away, Jody’s coming to play and wifey goes right along.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328445/soldier-suicides-are-they-all-about-ptsd-david-french#comments

White Knights won’t even understand the issue, of course.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
keyster October 17, 2012 at 13:18

The onlly reason the GOP opposed VAWA re-authorization this time around is the attempt to make it apply to illegal aliens, so far as I can tell. If there is any opposition to VAWA from any leader of the GOP that is based on any principle, such as “equality before the law”, or the Constitution, or even an attempt to defund the feminist machine, I am not aware of it. Maybe you can show us this principled opposition?

“Principled opposition” is bad politics, ESPECIALLY when it involves a protected class such as thy holy female. The Republican Congress is currently blocking VAWA re-authorization, mostly out of concerns for sketchy financial accountability, or so they say. Is that good enough for you? …Or should they just come out and say “Yeah VAWA is all a bunch of anti-male feminist pork bullshit, so we oppose it.”?

Who is worse for men and boys; the Party of Women that initiates and fights for female only legislation or the Other Party that has to constantly (and carefully) battle against them? Is it all Republican’s fault because they just haven’t fought the Femocratic Party hard enough the last 10 years on women’s “concerns”?

I don’t understand how you continue to believe SoCons are THE problem, when the evidence overwhelmingly points to the Democrats, N.O.W. endorsements, the War on Women narrative, the President’s Council on Women and Girls, the Dear Collegue letter regarding rape legal guidelines on college campuses — should I go on?

It’s like you’re living in an alternative universe or perhaps spending too much time with the Mad Hatter down in Wonder Land.

Maybe this will help you crawl out of the rabbit hole a little further:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODbn5GTkOQ

You’re swatting at windmills, while the real enemy of men and boys is Feminist/Marxism. I see what your doing there. You can’t reconcile you’re liberal worldview with Feminism, so you project your frustrations on to the SoCons…because you disagree with them politically, (except for that pesky feminist stuff).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 14:14

The onlly reason the GOP opposed VAWA re-authorization this time around is the attempt to make it apply to illegal aliens, so far as I can tell. If there is any opposition to VAWA from any leader of the GOP that is based on any principle, such as “equality before the law”, or the Constitution, or even an attempt to defund the feminist machine, I am not aware of it. Maybe you can show us this principled opposition?

“Principled opposition” is bad politics, ESPECIALLY when it involves a protected class such as thy holy female.

Ok, then stop implying that conservatives are opposed to feminism for reasons of principle.

. The Republican Congress

The Congress of the United States consists of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. You might make a note of this fact. Currently, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is blocking VAWA re-authorization.

is currently blocking VAWA re-authorization, mostly out of concerns for sketchy financial accountability, or so they say. Is that good enough for you?

Given the GOP history of making some gesture, and then caving in to the feminists and the left, not really impressed. I fully expect some sort of fig-leaf compromise to be reached that will fully fund VAWA, and yet allow you to trumpet a hollow “victory”.

…Or should they just come out and say “Yeah VAWA is all a bunch of anti-male feminist pork bullshit, so we oppose it.”?

Why not do that? I mean, if conservatives are so highly principled…

Who is worse for men and boys; the Party of Women that initiates and fights for female only legislation or the Other Party that has to constantly (and carefully) battle against them?

Which Other Party is that, please? The Other Party that rolled over for VAWA in 1994, that has made no effort to do anything about Title IX for nearly 20 years, that consistently has gone along with feminist legislation since Jimmy Carter was in the White House? Or is there some other Other Party I am not aware of?

Is it all Republican’s fault because they just haven’t fought the Femocratic Party hard enough the last 10 years on women’s “concerns”?

When has the Republican party ever fought against feminism?

I don’t understand how you continue to believe SoCons are THE problem,

Keyster, this straw man is getting really old. Show me where I said that SoCons are THE problem, or stop repeating this hogwash.

Feminists and feminism are THE problem for men, but socon/tradcon’s are more often than not just lapdogs who do whatever wimmen demand of them. Socons are not THE problem, but contrary to your, they are not THE solution, either.

Is that clear enough for you? Do you understand me, yet? This isn’t the first time I’ve pointed out the facts, can it be the last?

when the evidence overwhelmingly points to the Democrats, N.O.W. endorsements, the War on Women narrative, the President’s Council on Women and Girls, the Dear Collegue letter regarding rape legal guidelines on college campuses — should I go on?

Yes, you could show men were the GOP has done diddy about the above.

It’s like you’re living in an alternative universe or perhaps spending too much time with the Mad Hatter down in Wonder Land.

No, it’s like I’m living in the real world, where unlike you I actually pay attention to actions more than words. I see your White Knight socons constantly riding to save the poor wimmenz, helping to pass Bradley (Reagan had no problem signing it into law, if I recall), VAWA, family court, etc.

Oh, and Keyster, I saw what you did. You claimed that Bill Bennett doens’t matter and when I showed just how much of a leader for you socons he is, you dropped the subject. Why can’t you man UP and admit the truth?

You’re swatting at windmills, while the real enemy of men and boys is Feminist/Marxism.

I’m pointing out the facts, over and over and over again. You can’t deal with the facts, obviously. You can’t accept that far too many of the socons who think very much like you are always ready to help feminism, so long as it can be sugar coated with “for the women”.

I see what your doing there. You can’t reconcile you’re liberal worldview with Feminism, so you project your frustrations on to the SoCons…because you disagree with them politically, (except for that pesky feminist stuff).

Bah. I’ve pointed out facts, you respond with emotion. You argue like a feminist, or a white-knight woman-pedestalizer like Bennett.

Again I ask you, where are the socons who stand up to feminism?
Who are they, where do they write? What TV shows are they on? What books have they published? Stop with the insults, the straw man arguments, and just deal in facts.

Can you do that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Old Guy October 17, 2012 at 14:15

One of the things we have to do is to stop partisan bickering within the MRM. Both parties are complicit in creating the situation we face. Rather than fight each other over who hit whom, we should all speak to our own and plead Men’s case. Democrats need to start speaking up for men in Democrat forums and Republicans need to speak up on their forums.

I have been regularly refuting White Knights and other Fembots on Conservative and Libertarian sites. I do this mostly on PJmedia and Real Clear Politics in the comment sections. I do not let posts that call for manning up or bemoaning the lack of useful ready to marry men go by without offering the MRA perspective. I call out White Knights when they post and speak up for divorced men.

Please let us join together in common cause and not bring partisan bickering onto our forums. Be MRAs first and Democrats and Republicans second. Use your party membership to speak up for men to your fellow party members. Speak of the fairness. Challenge Feminist tropes. Ask, what is in this for men?

Both parties’ pols live in a bubble where the only voices they hear are Feminists, Manginas, and White Knights. They may now even realize that there are MRAs amongst their ranks who expect a little grease on their particular hinge. Do some squawking. Let them know that you are one of their voters and are feeling slighted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 14:21

Keyster, here is a simple challenge for you.
Title IX was enacted in the 1970′s. From around 1972 or so until the Clinton years, it was enforced on the basis of “equality of opportunity”. Starting in the Clinton administration around 1994 or so, Title IX was interpreted in terms of “equality of result”. So we see men’s sports teams such as wrestling, track, etc. being gutted in order to make the Dept. of Education happy about pure numbers.

This interpretation is an executive branch decision. It was made by Clinton, and no Congressional approval was required. Jonah Goldberg’s wife even wrote a book about it, explaining how it was not what the original drafters of Title IX intended. Any President could roll Title IX back into control with a stroke of the pen.

GW Bush was President for 8 years. He could have ordered Title IX interpretation back to the way it was for 20 years any time he wanted. He did not do that.

Why? If the GOP is the party defending men, why didn’t GW Bush take 15 minutes out of his 8 years of office to reset Title IX back to the way it was under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and GHW Bush?

Please explain this. It is a key part of the one-way ratchet towards tyranny – the Dems push all sorts of bad laws and regulations, and the GOP repeals none and rescinds none of them. And these are your “saviors”….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed October 17, 2012 at 14:24

Who is worse for men and boys; the Party of Women that initiates and fights for female only legislation or the Other Party that has to constantly (and carefully) battle against them? Is it all Republican’s fault because they just haven’t fought the Femocratic Party hard enough the last 10 years on women’s “concerns”?

(sigh)

Ask a random group of young men today whether the nuclear family with a stay-at-home wife who is supported by a breadwinning husband is the ideal, and I think you will find that support of that model has significantly diminished over the years.

And therein lies the fundamental conflict between the progressive and conservative views. The progressives have weakened social supports for enabling most men to satisfy women’s desires for hypergamy by being the protector and provider. While the conservatives may have put on a show about fighting this, they really have not been very effective. However, they remain unwilling to admit defeat, and their message to men seems to be “well, we let the progressives make it more and more impossible for you to live up to the cultural roles we have defined for you, but DO IT ANYWAY!

Boiled down it its simplest form – progressives beat men if they try to live up to traditional roles, conservatives beat them if they don’t.

What just about everyone tries to ignore is that women’s happiness and satisfaction with their lives have been declining since the 1960s, while men’s have been going up. In a nutshell, women were happier with a more traditional arrangement, while men were less happy.

It’s an odd paradox to hear the message to men – “go back to the ways that you were less happy so that women can be more happy.”

What the culture has done is transfer the burden of having to achieve from men to women. The Social Pathologist is the perfect example of the clueless conservative. Dalrock did a pretty good takedown of one of SP’s posts here – http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/how-the-destruction-of-marriage-is-strangling-the-feminist-welfare-state/

An even better example of how values-bias can make someone blind to evidence that slaps them in the face is here – http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/09/as-if-on-cue.html

When I was growing up, boys were constantly harassed to compete, achieve, and be the best provider they could be in order to claim the best quality women as their wives. Now that harassment has been transferred to women and a lot of men are just going along for the ride.

And who with two brain cells to rub together would have expected it to turn out any differently?

The best way to strangle the welfare state is to make women pay for it – to pay for the privilege of other women to live the life that the paying women want. The worst way to deal with the situation is to ineffectively fight the expansion of the welfare state, but to turn up the heat on men to increase their income – when there are no jobs – to pay for it.

Tying in a consistent theme in the manosphere – what sort of man does that hard working, ambitious, forward planning girl in SP’s post hang out with?

Does she hang out with a hard-working Christian, nice-guy? Nope.

She hangs out with a slacker thug.

So, what we have going on today in our culture is that all the rewards are going to the slacker thugs, and the nice-guy betas are stuck with paying the bills.

Thirty years ago young men got the drift of where things were headed and stopped going to college and pursuing the career track and instead dived for the shelter of the glass cellar. The completely counter-cultural nature of their value system and world view is staggering. Roosh is the perfect example.

As long as men have compete in the workplace with the equivalent of concrete blocks tied to their feet (Affirmative Action) and have the choice among women to wife up like Sandra Tsing Loh, they aren’t going to see much difference between coming in in 11th place, or 111th.

There is a word for “not fighting hard enough” – it is called “losing.”

The conservatives needed to win the battle for motivation of the foot soldiers they wanted to fight their battles for them. Now that they have lost the battle for that motivation, they seem to have switched to unlimited harassment to bitch men into living the lives they cons want.

I don’t think it will work, and in fact will simply hasten the decline as more and more men just tune their clueless asses out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Old Guy October 17, 2012 at 14:24

Oops!

They may now even realize that there are MRAs amongst their ranks

should read

They may not even realize that there are MRAs amongst their ranks

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Days of Broken Arrows October 17, 2012 at 16:08

“The advancement of the men’s movement against the discourse coalition of conservatism and feminism is a tough nut to crack.”

Like a lot of nuts, this one is easy to crack if you first break it into smaller pieces.

Instead of “advancing the men’s movement,” you start by noticing how African-American boys are lagging behind — and why resources are allotted to women of their race.

There is also the very specific demographic of grade school boys who are fed meds willy nilly instead of being diagnosed properly.

Then you move onto the boys without fathers. Then the boys who are victims of divorce.

After that, how about the war veterans who are mostly male? What about veterans who come home to wives who have left or taken their kids (I’ve found this narrative is especially compelling to the mainstream media).

If all of us found a way to break the male coalition into smaller pieces, we’d make progress. There are my suggestions, but I’m sure there are others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster October 17, 2012 at 16:13

Why? If the GOP is the party defending men, why didn’t GW Bush take 15 minutes out of his 8 years of office to reset Title IX back to the way it was under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and GHW Bush?

Whoever said the GOP is the “party defending men”? I’ve never heard of that in the platform. Where did they say that? Meanwhile the DNC platform is quite extensive with regards to various women’s “rights” issues…much too long to copy here. Google it.

The conservatives needed to win the battle for motivation of the foot soldiers they wanted to fight their battles for them. Now that they have lost the battle for that motivation, they seem to have switched to unlimited harassment to bitch men into living the lives they cons want.

(sigh)
Well the GOP didn’t nominate Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann, otherwise I might agree. The Feminist/Marxist narrative is impossible to avoid (just watch MSNBC for a coupla nights or read the NY Times), while certian erstwhile MRA’s really gotta do some digging to find a few obscure low rate SoCons that speak of shaming men into marrying. If you were a conservative you’d know – – it’s rarely if ever discussed….but if and when it is, OMG does it raise the hackles of liberal MRA’s….”See, see the GOP is just as bad!”

Pragmatic conservatives (which most are) freely admit they’ve lost the culture war of the 1960′s and that we’re in decline as a result. The infiltration of the Marxist/Socialist populist narrative has worked and is continuing to work as we speak. Social and economic justice is appealing to many people.

I talk to conservatives regularily. I’ve not once had a conservative disagree with me about the state of men and boys and the available pool of wives. Most of them have absolutely no idea. When it comes to liberals and conservatives there’s one issue only and thats abortion rights; followed by contraception, health care and sometimes equal pay. Most conservatives don’t care much about abortion rights and other woman stuff, they just don’t want the government (you and me) to pay for it.

The GOP defeated Harry Reid’s Paycheck Fairness Act in 2010. Should Obama win you can expect it to be “passed” by executive order in one form or another.

Conservatives aren’t as concerned with special interest groups and their special issues. They view Americans as sovereign individuals regardless of gender and/or race. This is preferred over the gender class warfare that Democrats continue to promote.

(sigh over)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 16:45

Days of Broken Arrows
Instead of “advancing the men’s movement,” you start by noticing how African-American boys are lagging behind — and why resources are allotted to women of their race.

Exactly. There is enough data now to demonstrate that many boys and young men learn more in male-only classes. Black boys and young men need all the help they can get. Therefore, black-majority schools should offer boys-only classes, if enough parents want that.

Anyone opposing boys-only classes clearly wants black boys and young men to fail. Therefore, opposition to male-only classes is a form of racism….

Yes. Excellent. This is a good nutcracker, because once it can be shown that on average, black boys and young men do learn a measurable amount better in male-only classes, the next step is more men teaching them. Then repeat for Hispanics. Then ask why not white boys and young men?

This can work. And it is a good first step, because taking the education of boys and young men away from women is important.

Hey, Keyster, why not propose this to your conservative feminist friends, under the rubric of “school choice”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 16:50

I asked:
Why? If the GOP is the party defending men, why didn’t GW Bush take 15 minutes out of his 8 years of office to reset Title IX back to the way it was under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and GHW Bush?

Whoever said the GOP is the “party defending men”?

You did, right on this thread.

Keyster
Who is worse for men and boys; the Party of Women that initiates and fights for female only legislation or the Other Party that has to constantly (and carefully) battle against them? Is it all Republican’s fault because they just haven’t fought the Femocratic Party hard enough the last 10 years on women’s “concerns”?

Keyster, is it too much to ask that you keep track of your own words? Do I have to hold up both sides of the conversation?

Now answer the question. You claim the GOP is good for men. If that is true, then why didn’t GW Bush rein in Title IX with a stroke of the pen, in the same manner BJ Clinton expanded it? It’s not like he didn’t have enough time in 8 years to do it….if he had wanted to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lysander Spooner October 17, 2012 at 16:51

A Barbarossaaaaa Classic:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_b8Gs6WoW0&w=560&h=315

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Szebran October 17, 2012 at 18:06

It takes time. We are in the education phase of this war.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Born Free October 17, 2012 at 18:27

Without taking up ten paragraphs of space, let me sum it up for you: It doesn’t matter who you vote for, left or right, they will always cater to the women’s vote, or whoever happens to have the majority voting power.

We are on our own!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 17, 2012 at 18:30

The Feminist/Marxist narrative is impossible to avoid (just watch MSNBC for a coupla nights or read the NY Times),

I would not watch PMSnbc or read the NY Slime if you held a gun to my head. Nor, for that matter, would I waste even a few seconds of my life watching Fox news. I don’t even have a TV in my house.

How much avoidance of the Feminist/Marxist narrative is possible depends, I suppose, on how obnoxious one considers it. Where on the political spectrum does drowning in pink all the month of October fall? Why does Anheuser Bush think that the way to sell men their beer is to create commercials which portray men who drink their beer as complete idiots?

Is jewelry a Feminist/Marxist creation? How about all those jewelry commercials which start with – “What better way to show you that you love her than to let her sit at home alone while you work overtime to pay for one of our ridiculously overpriced, mostly useless, baubles?” Why is every Valentine’s Day a continuous orgy of threats against men if they screw up the gift selection?

If I am in a good mood when a jewelry commercial comes on the radio, I just turn down the sound. If I am in a bad mood, I scream at the radio – “F- you, you stupid a-holes!!”

Are the 4-5 bumper stickers I see in the parking garage every day at work which proclaim “I ♡ My Wife” – a symbol of radical leftism, or mangina-ish supplication? To my way of thinking, the only person in the world to whom it really matters whether he ♡s his wife is his wife – why parade the fact around?

Pragmatic conservatives (which most are) freely admit they’ve lost the culture war of the 1960′s and that we’re in decline as a result.

“They” also lost the Vietnam War of the 1960s, for much the same reason. And the pullout, leaving hundreds of the Vietnamese who supported our side stranded, will always turn out to be a losing strategy.

No better example of pursuing a losing strategy until it fails, then capitulating, exists than the recent Chic-Fil-A debacle. After an outpouring of conservative support for his position on marriage, which translated a bit to cash flow, Chi-Fil-A rolled over, and agreed to stop funding all groups with an anti-gay message.

Before now, Chick-fil-A had no formal message as it related to the fair treatment of all citizens in our great democracy. Now, for the first time in the company’s history, Chick-fil-A provided an official company document, which clarifies their new policies to ensure equality at Chick-fil-A facilities.”

I suppose the almighty $ trumps any other consideration. I would not be surprised if the amount of money spend that one day by conservatives showing support was larger than the amount of money which will be spent by all GLBT people there in the next year.

Allow me to put forward a couple of values I hold which I, personally, consider extremely conservative –
1. Dance with the one who brung you,
2. If someone goes out on a limb to support you, don’t saw the limb off.

The armchair generals lost the culture war because they sat on their fat asses back at home, and wanted the conscripts to do all of the dirty work of fighting. And then, when the vets got home, they went “What do you mean – veteran’s benefits?”

When the conscripts desert – go AWOL – it doesn’t do any good to point to “the enemy” and loudly proclaim – “No, they were the ones shooting at you!!” “They” were only shooting at “us” because we were the foot soldiers for the culture war.

The minute we take ourselves out of the middle, and “go native”, we stop taking bullets.

The reason that conservatives lost the cultural war is that they have absolutely zero sense of allegiance to their allies. They pedestalize women to an even greater degree than the Feminist/Marxists – who just want to send them to work and make them pay taxes.

The problem conservatives have with MGTOW is that we don’t believe them, or believe in them, any longer. Just as VAWA is named in a way that makes it appear to be something it isn’t, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does nothing that affects a man’s ability to receive fair compensation at work – all it does is remove the statute of limitations from suing the employer. The GOP is fighting it to protect business, not for any benefit it has to men.

The right has lost the culture war, which means it has lost the cultural center. As young men get wise to what has been going on, the 47% who pay no taxes will become 48%, then 49%, then 50% and above.

This conversation is so typical of the conservative narrative –
Us: “Here is why we don’t and won’t support you, and what you need to do in order to get our support.”
Cons” “Well, you should support us anyway, because we won’t be any worse than those lib-ruhls!”

No worse, but no better. But, it is far better to face an enemy we know is an enemy, than to turn our back on some faux allies, then wonder where that knife in our back came from.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
imnobody October 17, 2012 at 18:51

There is no coalition because there is no difference. Feminism and social conservatism are the radical and moderate branches of the pedestalization movement, whose aim is to idealize women to enable the transfer of wealth from men to women.

The pedestalization movement starts in the 12 century with the troubadours and the hijacking of the Church by the women. It radicalizes itself inside the Puritan movement. The genealogy is like that:

Puritanism -> Great Awakenings (emotional and women based) -> Temperance movement

From Temperance movement —> the Suffragettes and Feminism
From Temperance movement —>Modern social conservatism.

Many first feminists developed their first ideas inside the Methodist Church (Hillary Clinton follows this tradition).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
imnobody October 17, 2012 at 18:53

A more detailed view:

As I’ve said before, feminism and so-con pedestalizers are two branches of the same ideology: the female supremacism or, if you will, the pedestalization movement. This movement started with the troubadours, in XII century, when each poet considered himself a vassal of a lady and hence her inferior. This pedestalization spread for all the history of Western poetry, e.g. Dante in “The Divine Comedy” makes Beatrice a redemptor of the human race and puts her roughly at the same level as Christ. We can talk about Petrarca or “Le Roman de la Rose”. This pedestalization reached its apogee in Victorian times and extended until the 50s: the woman was “the angel of the house” and man was civilized by her love.

The aim of this ideology was to make men willing to economically support women. This is similar to Indian religion, which makes cows sacred in order to protect them from slaughter (which could produce the starvation of the family). Cows were specially vulnerable, because bulls were not killed since they were needed for agriculture. But, if cows were sacrified, there was no way to get future milk and more cows and bulls (through reproduction) so it was necessary to make cows sacred, in order to the long-term interests to prevail so people could have better chances of surviving.

The same way women were elevated to the status of angels and superior beings, because they were the more vulnerable (in a world without contraceptives and without medicines they had to be economically supported in order to make the survival of human communities possible). Women were brainwashed since childhood to be “good girls”, so they get closer to this ideal, although anyone that has had experience with women in their feral state knows how female nature is different from this ideal.

Then technology advanced and women stopped being so vulnerable (the death in labor was almost eliminated, women had access to easy jobs that did not demand physical endurance, contraceptives reduced the number of children and appliances and compulsory education reduced the need of housekeeping). When this happened, the old deal of full-time work for sex, reproduction and housekeeping became obsolete. Since sex, reproduction and housekeeping were not as hard as before, their value dropped and, hence, they could not demand being economically supported by a man only because of it. This is the real reason of the entrance of women into the workplace.

Faced with these new situations, there was a split in the pedestalization movement. Some women tried to cling to a past where her husband economically supported them: these were the so-cons. They shamed men to stick to their traditional role, even if women’s traditional role was not available anymore.

Some other women tried to make the transfer of wealth compulsory, even if men didn’t received anything in return. Unlike the so-cons, the transfer was not from husband to wife, but from all men to all women, through taxes. These were the feminist.

At the end of the day, as someone said, “women agree about the goal and they only differ about the means”. The goal is the transfer of wealth from men to women. But each group thinks that their strategy to reach that goal is the best.

This is why feminism and so-con pedestalizers are so compatible that they can be mixed in a lot of different ways, producing endless varieties of hybrid feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Titanium October 17, 2012 at 19:23

Check out this Yahoo article.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-and-the-%E2%80%9Cbinder%E2%80%9D-blunder-45646812684.html

Excerpt:
Just in case the humor seems opaque, let me offer a binder full of analysis.

First, his answer to a question about the grave subject of wage inequality flaunts his gender bias: In his anecdote, Romney ostentatiously refuses to consider qualified applicants just because they’re men.

Second, Romney in this instance was hiring for positions largely about optics: He wanted women in his cabinet so he could say he had women in his cabinet. He recruited women to be women—not cabinet members.

Third, the binders response raises the specter of a still more hideous idea. Before answering the question, Romney had been reminded that women earn about 72 percent what their male counterparts do—and his response was to say, “Exactly! That’s why, given half a chance, I hire women!” Bottom line, Romney recruits women because they look good and they come cheap.

The remark has done more than alienate women, for whom—as all recent data confirms—no one needs to do any special favors. For years, and to the despair of mothers of sons, females have been far more educated and better qualified than male applicants for almost anything. They also get jobs easily and don’t need someone searching high and low for binders of resumes. They just need to get paid fairly for what they do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 19:37

Keyster, You are not making sense.

I talk to conservatives regularily. I’ve not once had a conservative disagree with me about the state of men and boys and the available pool of wives. Most of them have absolutely no idea.

Which is it? Do they agree about the state of men, or do they have no idea?
It makes a difference. If conservatives really know what is happening to men – if they know about divorce theft, about the majority of DV accusations being false, if they know about the anti-man family courts, etc. and they are unwilling to do anything, they they are at best worthless. If they don’t know, they need to learn.

Which is it? Or is it a combination of both?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 19:40

Keyster, it seems to me your argument boils down to this:

“Sure, men and children, especially boys, are getting beaten badly. That’s what the Democrats do. Now, if the Republicans get voted in, the beatings will continue, but they won’t get worse. If the Dems get re-elected, the beatings will get worse.

Support conservatives! The beatings will continue, but they won’t get worse“.

Do you understand why there might not be a wave of enthusiastic support?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous October 17, 2012 at 20:07

Those that equate the left and the right are simply blinded to reality. Scott Walker repealed the “equal pay” law in Wisconsin right before the recall election. At the 2nd debate, Mitt Romney was asked about his position on “equal pay” and dodged the question by talking about how he hired qualified women in his cabinet. Romney has said he “supports current law,” but that’s only true until Republicans place a bill to overturn the Lilly Ledbetter Frivolous Lawsuit Act (first law ever signed by Obama) on his desk. Romney went on to use a gun control question as an opportunity to criticize single mothers (Obama likely cost himself the election by openly endorsing gun control for the first time as President, proving the NRA right all along)! Todd Akin, the Republican candidate in Missouri, got smeared by the media because he had the audacity to imply that some women who claim to be “raped” aren’t telling the truth (obviously, the hysterical reaction to his comments wasn’t caused by his minor misunderstanding of anatomy). Another Republican Senate candidate (Tom Smith from PA) was asked about his position on rape exceptions for abortion and criticized single mothers. He hasn’t been harmed by the comments and is now in a neck-and-neck race against a supposedly “unbeatable” opponent. Republicans want to repeal the Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits men convicted of “domestic violence” from owning a gun.

The way men’s rights can win politically is to hide our positions (and if necessary, pay lip service like Romney did) so as not to scare women away and then push our agenda once we’re elected. If you are serious about reining in spending and setting our fiscal house in order, you have to be largely against feminism and all of its handouts.

By the way, if you compare the Republicans to the Democrats, you’ll realize why the Republicans are better (and can be persuaded in our direction). Remember, that crazy drunkard Joe Biden was the author of VAWA. Bob Casey (Tom Smith’s opponent) was the sponsor of a bill to make the Obama adminstration’s “Dear Colleague” letter (“more likely than not” as the standard for colleges to determine whether to expel a man accused of rape) into federal law. The Democrats are almost all fanatically anti-male and cannot be reasoned with. Republicans, especially at the grassroots, will listen. There are pro-male elements in the Republican Party and we need to strengthen their ranks and arguments so they can overtake the anti-male elements in the party. The best way to do that is to be active in the GOP and run for office as Republicans. The most important offices for men’s issues are at the state level because that’s where most of the anti-male legislation comes from (and the rest of it can be nullified at the state level if MRAs controlled the state government). Run for office as a Republican that wants less government (preferably in a solid Republican district) and resist the temptation to talk about men’s issues while campaigning. Once you’re in the state legislature, you can fight for men’s issues and also fight to shrink government. If you build a solid record as a libertarian-leaning conservative, you’ll have a solid base to support you when the inevitable “War on Women” accusations start.

If you don’t join the fight, you only help the greater evil and they will just make things even worse for men. At the very least, we can work to persuade the lesser evil a little bit and maybe buy a little time before we end up past the point of no return.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 20:09

Romney and his “binder” just supports the original posting:

It’s hard for men’s rights activists to win by voting for democrats or republicans, because they both have the same goal: protection of women.

Conservatives: Men, the beatings will continue until your morale improves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jaego October 17, 2012 at 20:41

And what do woman say about this story? They’re not into it: they are both the heroes and victims. The only role left for men is villian. White Knights are tolerated as servants, valets, drivers, etc.

How did come to this? Complicated but the women have “class consciousness” and loyalty to the class. As the previous poster said, this doesn’t come natural to men. And worse, today’s Western Men typically have no loyalty even to other indivdual men and have no real club or tribe either. If and until we start building some of these structures in the real world (and not just here) MGTOW is the Way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 17, 2012 at 21:29

The way men’s rights can win politically is to hide our positions (and if necessary, pay lip service like Romney did) so as not to scare women away and then push our agenda once we’re elected.

That’s called “bait and switch” and is the reason why intelligent people do not trust politicians. It only works once.

By the way, if you compare the Republicans to the Democrats, you’ll realize why the Republicans are better (and can be persuaded in our direction). Remember, that crazy drunkard Joe Biden was the author of VAWA.

And remember that crazy drunkard Ted Kennedy ran his car off a bridge and left a young woman to drown.

So?

Frankly, I lean mostly away from Marxists and have only voted for or supported a Democrat once since Goldwater ran in 1964. I was too young to have any opinion on Jack Kennedy.

I strongly supported George Bush in 2000, only to find out that he concocted a huge lie about some tinpot dictator in the Middle East having weapons of mass destruction, and the next thing we knew we were in a war that cost thousands of lives, left 10s of thousands of soldiers wounded, and cost the US well over a trillion $.

And, Bush was also the mastermind behind “No child left behind” which is the ultimate in Affirmative Action. And, “W stands for Women.”

Being presented a choice between lung cancer or colon cancer boils down to which one will cause the least lingering and painful death.

If you don’t join the fight, you only help the greater evil and they will just make things even worse for men.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

You guys really don’t get it. The only men getting hurt are the ones who support your agenda. The ones who have told you to go pound sand are doing OK.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 17, 2012 at 21:51

zed
You guys really don’t get it. The only men getting hurt are the ones who support your agenda. The ones who have told you to go pound sand are doing OK.

Joe Average is married, going to a church, raising children. He’s watching women who are sluts get a total pass from his church, courtesy of teary-eyed altar calls, while men are hammered from the pulpit on a regular basis. He’s constantly at risk of false accusations of sexual harassment at work. Unless he’s married to a very religious woman, or a very smart woman, he’s at risk for divorce theft at home. HIs children could be stolen from him at any time. Very likely he votes Republican every election. He sends money to conservative causes.

This is the kind of man whom Anonymous likes, and he’s constantly in danger of being permanently harmed fiscally, and physically.

Roosh is traveling the world. He’s published a book on how to seduce and bang women in Estonia, based on his personal experiences. He earns enough money to get by. He won’t have children. He probably won’t ever marry anyone. He sure don’t vote in US elections anymore.

He’s not at risk of false rape accusations, false DV accusations, false sexual harassment accusations, divorce theft, or any of the other long list of Swords of Damocles hanging over Joe Average’s head.. I’m sure Anonymous and Keyster and all the other conservatives just hate, hate, hate Roosh.

Roosh does not care. He Does. Not. Care. He has gone his own way, right out the door to the Baltic, and He. Does. Not. Care.

Joe Average cares. He cares a lot.

Joe Average’s life can be ruined in a matter of weeks, legally, by any of several women – including women he does not even know – while Roosh can’t be touched.

Do you see? Do you conservatives see what you have done? The men whom you claim to value the most are living their lives straddling the maw of a meat grinder. The men you denounce as “Peter Pan” are totally invulnerable to that meat grinder.

If socons/tradcons were generals, their entire army would consist of firing squads, constantly executing other firing squads.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 17, 2012 at 23:08

I would not watch PMSnbc or read the NY Slime

Really? Do you read the Times now? Have you ever read the Times? There’s no paper as good.Don’t read the editorial or opinion pages if you don’tlike them but there’s plenty of other stuff and you won’t find a newspaper as good. Here are just a few of the many tings in today’s paper I was reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/dining/reviews/a-white-house-beer-we-can-believe-in.html?ref=dining&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/science/among-certain-arachnids-single-fathers-attract-more-mates.html?ref=science

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/home-schooling-comic-con-style-part-1/?ref=fashion

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
numnut October 17, 2012 at 23:32

“while Roosh can’t be touched.”
LMAOROFL
Pure hogwash.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
"The One" October 18, 2012 at 02:55

It’s not just about the story line. You have to back up your point of view with action.

The way to defeat Feminists is to defeat their men. The Feminist woman will initiate conflict. The key is to out-flank the men she relies on to finish what she starts.

So she initiates the conflict, and then I turn my attention on the man she relies on to fight for her honor before she even summons him. I take offense to her, and I demand to know “What man speaks for this woman?”

This puts him on defense right away. He knows his woman is a trouble-maker who picks fights with men. He lies in wait, and rushes out in her defense. But he does not expect one who knows how to ambush the ambush.

This is like the strategy you will find in Miyamoto Musashi’s Book of Five Rings, or Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Feminists tremble when I call out the men who lie in wait for me to take their bait.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
"The One" October 18, 2012 at 03:00

When you encounter a woman with a bad attitude, step back and assess the situation, and you will see her henchman lurking somewhere nearby. Dismiss her and go after him. He is a scoundrel. A man of honor keeps a woman in her place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
imnobody October 18, 2012 at 06:54

If you don’t join the fight, you only help the greater evil and they will just make things even worse for men.

In my language, there is a saying that goes like this: “God, protect me from my friends because I protect myself from my enemies”.

Being a reactionary (far right), I prefer to deal with liberals than with conservatives. Liberals are HONEST. They believe what they mean and they do what they believe. You can argue with them in an honest way. When they say “we don’t think men must be the head of the household” they mean it and you can give them counter-arguments based on that.

A conservative is the most hypocritical being of the universe. They will tell you all day long that they support men, they are against divorce, they are in favor of the family, they think God has made men the head of the family… And they do exactly the opposite by passive-agressive behaviors (as if they were little bitches).

For example: They say they are against divorce but they don’t want to shame women who divorce because the man is always to blame. And then, they have the nerve to say that they are pro-men.

So you can say other people “liberals are against the traditional family” and everybody understands you because liberals are honest about that. But you say “conservatives are enabling the destruction of the traditional family” and nobody understands you because conservatives are saying all day “the family!”, “the family!” as if it were a mantra (and then doing otherwise).

“If you don’t join the fight”? Which fight? When, in the last forty years, conservatives have defended men publicly or pass a piece of legislation favoring men? When they have supported legislation in favor of women? (lots of times).

Conservatives have been the moral cover of feminism, because they sugarcoat the female supremacism agenda they support with appeals to God, the traditional family and self-righteousness.

You are not fighting my fight, man. If you want men to be canon fodder of your fight, you’d better give them something better than “liberals are worse”.

Give me a liberal, every day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 18, 2012 at 07:20

“while Roosh can’t be touched.”
LMAOROFL
Pure hogwash.

Maybe, maybe not. Are you really going to argue that a single man living in eastern Europe is at risk as much as a married man in the US working for Encorpora? Is Roosh really at risk of divorce theft? Of winding up in deadbeat dad’s debtor’s prison because a family court judge imputed higher income to him than he ever had? Really at risk of a false accusation of DV, or sexual harassment, or rape as much as Joe Average of a fixed address of a mortgaged house?

Seriously, is that what you are claiming?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 18, 2012 at 08:53

the Times? There’s no paper as good.

Now, there is a sad testimonial. Propaganda masquerading as news? I’ll pass.

Jayson Blair? Write a good fictional narrative and call it “news”, because it was “accurate, if not true.”

Line up for a good Dan Rathering, gullible guys.

The Slimes is one of many house organs for cultural marxism. Earthworms get to eat shit, and they don’t have to pay for it.

I’ll be enjoying my freedom while you sedentary fools are sitting around on your passive asses waiting for your savior to show up and hand you your freedom. And, I won’t spend my hard earned money paying for the shit they put out so they can get richer from my contribution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 18, 2012 at 08:59

From the OP
In the old times we had John Wayne, who saved the woman. The New Gentleman doesn’t save just one woman, he fights for the sake of feminism. He has succeeded in combining the story lines of conservatism and feminism.

This highlights how the two different groups view men. The traditional White Knight would save an individual woman, who was supposed to be worth saving – the “lady fair”. However, as the female supremacist notions have infiltrated main stream culture, more and more people who call themselves “conservative” are really holding positions that were liberal or even radical 35 or more years ago. So we see various conservatives – social, traditional, etc. – insisting that men must work for money to support a woman and any children, but women may choose to work for money or not, as they prefer. This is the liberal, 2nd stage feminist position circa 1975, it is not “traditional” in any way.

Far too many tradition / social conservatives regard men as only having any value to the extent that they serve women. This is a gynosupremacist position. Men are more than robots, walking ATM’s and sperm vending machines.

Tradcons/socons want men to serve women on an individual basis – each woman to have her own mule, robot, ATM, sperm vending machine. Feminists want men to serve women as a collective – taxes to support single babymommas, taxes to pay teachers to indoctrinate boys in their rightful position in society via ‘schooling’, taxes to pay university professors to further indoctrinate / brainwash men, and so forth.

Both groups regard men as objects, or livestock, rather than as humans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster October 18, 2012 at 10:39

No worse, but no better. But, it is far better to face an enemy we know is an enemy, than to turn our back on some faux allies, then wonder where that knife in our back came from.

This is exactly the essence of why the Men’s Movement remains stuck in neutral. It refuses to co-opt a political side, much like the feminists so adeptly did when they begrudgingly aligned themselves with the Democratic Party. The Men’s Movement will never MOVE until it becomes political. It will remain a social awareness club of sorts I suppose, but not much else will ever happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Joey October 18, 2012 at 11:19

Redefining the role of the male in a in a setting that promotes reciprocal altruism rather than role of provider is just logical .
The Government see’s the male as slave ,I herd one man say ,focusing on the problems of one gender will not sovle the problem .
The problem is three is a crowd and who is the thierd wheel in the room And why is the third wheel walking off with the money .
Men need hero’s and catch phases ,Imagine the hero walking around the country side with sword rather then a pen . We can be farmers or worriors . Swords and plows are made from the same steel .
Who the fuck are these people in my bedroom ? Ohhh let me get my sword that will end it ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 18, 2012 at 12:12

No worse, but no better. But, it is far better to face an enemy we know is an enemy, than to turn our back on some faux allies, then wonder where that knife in our back came from.

This is exactly the essence of why the Men’s Movement remains stuck in neutral. It refuses to co-opt a political side, much like the feminists so adeptly did when they begrudgingly aligned themselves with the Democratic Party. The Men’s Movement will never MOVE until it becomes political.

Begrudgingly? You are always good for some comic relief, Keyster.

In fact, you have it exactly backwards. One of the biggest reasons why the MRM has stayed stuck in neutral is that we have allowed conservatives to infiltrate us and co-opt us. They have sort of done what they can to turn us into a company union – in name only.

There is no need of any sort of men’s movement if the entire objective is to hold on to the past, or find a way to return to it. The conservatives lost the cultural war because they were in the minority and lost their control over the levers of power. They lost the cultural center, and for some totally obscure reason are expecting men to sign on to fight their battles to return men to wage slavery for the oligarchs.

The more men refuse to buy it, the louder and more strident the conservatives get at yammering at them to get their lazy asses back into their chains.

Where it really gets hilarious is that now conservatives are acting exactly like women in hysterically shrieking about their need for men’s support for some sort of “Violence Against Republican’s Act – VARA.” If men don’t turn to, and vote in the next architect of the next AIG bailout – with men’s tax dollars – then all hell will break loose.

Between 1968 and 2008, 7 out 10 presidential terms were headed by Republicans. If the gang who can’t shoot straight can’t keep it between the ditches by being in power 70% of the time, there ain’t anything there for “men”, or the MRM to co-opt.

This is remarkably similar to WW I, when the elites expected men to waste their lives to keep the elites in power. Commanders at Gallipoli or the battle of the Somme thought nothing of ordering thousands of young men to their deaths.

One arm of the MRM is not clamoring for men to keep their right to be slaves to outsourcer-in-chief, and if the outsourcers want to keep men showing up for work, then they had better do something about the working conditions or hire some more illegals.

From the MRM standpoint, conservatives are the crack dealers, and progressives are the DEA.

They only hurt the people who believe in them. Don’t be a fool, and you can do better than most men have throughout history.

Or, you can end up as one of these “good men.” –
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Memorial_Day_at_Arlington_National_Cemetery.jpg

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
"The One" October 18, 2012 at 12:51

Somoliquent wrote: “White males, more so than non-white ones, are the most vigilant and most unquestioning of elastically defined and arbitrarily enforced women’s rights amongst all males.”

Absolutely wrong. You probably don’t know any white men who are not progressives. The fact is, Feminism is stridently racist against whites.

Somoliquent wrote: “Accordingly to white males, there is to be no defined beginning nor any defined end to where or when women’s rights engage or disengage from other peoples rights.”

White men did not invent the ideology which has white men directly in the cross-hairs. You’re jealous of white men. White men earned power through everything except feminism. Intellect, ingenuity, exploration, war, and a strong work ethic. Feminism was contrived by those who wanted to take power away from white men. We’re not the ones who have to hide behind women’s skirts for protection.

Somoliquent wrote: “This keeps white males, a majority, in an attractive and powerful position over every other male, given their assumed powers to police, to enforce and to define what is, and what is not women’s rights.”

No. It’s our power which keeps white men in a powerful position. Feminism is what takes away our power. Real power, not “white privilege”.

Somoliquent wrote: “Why are white women not made by force of law to pay compensation directly to non-white women for their differential oppression rate, in the same way all men are made to compensate all women?”

White women are made by force of law to pay compensation to non-white women, but not directly, it goes through the IRS first. Men do not pay directly to women either, it goes through the IRS.

With regard to direct payments, I recall a recent case from New York, in which a black guy was allegedly racially insulted, and the company had to pay him ridiculous amounts of money. I wish I could be paid millions for my hurt feelings from anti-white racial insulters.

Somoliquent: Everything you say is a lie. I have no sympathy for you. Less than zero. You’re not an MRA, you’re a race baiting, white-guilt advocating, shakedown artist, just like the Feminists. You might as well go back to your natural allies, the Feminists, who also hate white men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 18, 2012 at 15:10

With regard to direct payments, I recall a recent case from New York, in which a black guy was allegedly racially insulted, and the company had to pay him ridiculous amounts of money.

Cite the case and I’ll tell you what he really got, if anything. You read this in some newspaper and didn’t understand what you read. Most of these cases are dismissed on appeal or if the jury awarded him a high judgement it is greatly reduced by the appelate division. You probably don’t know this but there’s a formula they use in civil cases depending on the case which is why a good lawyer can pretty much tell you what your case is worth.
Let’s say you tripped on someone’s property and broke your leg. They would consider the severity of the injury, loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering etc etc A man earning $1k a week who couldn’t work for a month is not going to get the same as someone making $10k a week under the same circumstances because he didn’t lose the same income.
Someone insulting you or calling you a nigger is worth practically nothing. If some stupid jury were to award you a billion dollars (jurors can award any sum even if it wasn’t sued for) do you really believe the plaintiff is going to get it? That would be dismissed by the trial judge or on appeal immediately without prejudice which means the plaintiff would have to sue again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 18, 2012 at 15:34

This is exactly the essence of why the Men’s Movement remains stuck in neutral

There is no men’s movement and there will never be.
No one who has ever done anything that may benefit some men (like getting the max. child support reduced in their State) has ever identified themselves as part of any movement. You don’t want to be part of a fringe group anyway and want to be thought of as mainstream. Most of you just want to”get even” for some real or imagined injury some female has inflicted on you.
But don’t worry because guys like me will have the male birth control pill out and that will change the balance of power soon. And no one is going to be donating sperm, no one with any brains or assets that is, in these days of DNA testing because you know that sooner or later some female is going to want cs from some sperm donar. And stop with this nonsense about incubators blah blah blah because science doesn’t even know yet what causes identical twins.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price October 18, 2012 at 16:46

But don’t worry because guys like me will have the male birth control pill out and that will change the balance of power soon.

-Avenger

When you’ve got the patent pending feel free to let us know for investment purposes.

No one who has ever done anything that may benefit some men (like getting the max. child support reduced in their State) has ever identified themselves as part of any movement.

Well, my dad got a couple men’s issues bills passed in Olympia when he was a Democrat lobbyist back in the 80s and 90s, including one that eliminated alimony in WA, and another that made withholding visitation a crime punishable by jail time, and although he never called himself part of a “movement,” he definitely identified with fathers’ rights groups. BTW, due to his efforts the dyke faction here accused him of being the Green River Killer (seriously), and he was subsequently investigated by Dave Reichert, had his car impounded, and was harassed by capitol police until they caught on that the lesbians were full of it.

So don’t make light of injuries guys have dealt with from feminists. It is no laughing matter, and certainly not grounds for implying they are losers. It’s pretty serious stuff when men with guns come after you, and you should really show a bit more gratitude toward those who deal with that kind of thing on your and other men’s behalf.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
imnobody October 18, 2012 at 18:22

Both groups regard men as objects, or livestock, rather than as humans.

As I said, they are the same group: the moderate wing and the radical wing of the female supremacism movement.

Wellmer, talking here is entertaining (and I don’t pretend to achieve anything with this), but your father… that’s another level. He is a real hero and a man worth of admiration.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cyclotronmajesty October 18, 2012 at 19:57

its just a social taboo. Whiners.

its not tough to crack you simply crack it by ever other means of taboo cracking.

Violate it and then show how stupid others are for opposing u.

men u need to stop nursing ur egos.
As it is now u cant be a masta p and a MRA.
Take the abuse and smile to it in cowerdice as a masta p
or smile in defiance as a MRA.

Being a loser is really no big deal.
If u cant bear being a loser ull never win.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cyclotronmajesty October 18, 2012 at 20:02

u just fuking WHINE. who the fuk cares what ppl say and think? WHINE fuking louder!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 18, 2012 at 20:55

@Price-I will never have the patent because the patent has already expired on the drug and is sold generically for another medical condition.In order to get something approved by the FDA for a particular condition would cost a great deal of money and you would have to prove efficacy. No one is going to do this to be able to advertise and sell it as a male birth control pill;it would be like getting aspirin approved for this purpose where anyone could just use it. A doctor can use any drug legally for any purpose even if it’s not FDA approved for that use (off label use) For example, drugs like Paxil and Prosac are FDA approved for depression and a few other conditions but doctors have used everything from amphetemines to methadone to treat depression off label since they are not approved for this condition.
Another problem is that I don’t know the absolute minimum dosage that is effective for birth control that doesn’t cause side effects which in this case would be lowering of blood pressure. If the regular dose is 60mg. will 5mg work as birth control and have no effect on blood pressure.I’ve tried it on myself Dr. Jekyl style :) and it doesn’t effect BP much at 60mg. but a 20yo may have severe hypotension at that dose so we need to know the tiniest dose that’s effective as a birth control method. That’s one problem. Another is how effective it is. The female birth control pills claim to be 99% effective when used as directed and when they don’t skip days or “forget” to take it. In fact, without any birth control 90% of fertile females will get pregnant within a year(YOU MAY WANT TO REMEMBER THAT). But I figure that even if the male pill is not that good but just as effective as a condom then it’s a valuable drug to use.
I think that if enough men were demanding a male pill that someone would come up with a non hormonal pill.It’s really just a matter of blocking an enzyme so the sperm cannot penetrate the egg.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 18, 2012 at 20:59

although he never called himself part of a “movement,”

That’s what I meant and it may be more effective to sneak these things in under their noses so that the new laws become the norm.

“he dyke faction here accused him of being the Green River Killer (seriously), ”

There’s got to be something in the Seattle water :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon October 18, 2012 at 22:59

What that man-bitch called Romney is after alongside Benet Bill types, is to coral and shame men back into chains of involuntary and mindless servitude to women, off which the oligarchy’s profit so much.

It is not for nothing that “UncleElmer”, “TheOne” and “keyster” are so pro social-conservatism. Men working purely for works sake and men serving women and country purely for woman and country’s sake, are memes that preserve white race privilege by keeping white males dominant at the bully pulpit and the public trough.

Who reaps the returns from all this zombie-work and the false conservative, christian morals these dinosaurs are bent on spoon feeding us by political and feminist force ? White males and white females of course.

Why should I participate ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
"The One" October 19, 2012 at 00:07

Avenger wrote: “Cite the case and I’ll tell you what he really got, if anything.”

No you won’t because the case hasn’t gone to an appellate court. $25M, NY. That’s enough information for you to find the case yourself.

Avenger wrote: “You read this in some newspaper and didn’t understand what you read.”

I’m well aware of how the legal system works. Even if it gets knocked down to a tenth, that’s still a fortune. I don’t see any whites getting awarded millions for suffering racial aggression.

Why don’t you start your own website and see how many people are interested in reading your thoughts?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Titanium October 19, 2012 at 08:03

Where do I register so I can vote on comments?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Perseus October 20, 2012 at 00:42

What an insightfully inspired piece. I will be powerless to not integrate this piece. Thank you for it.

Tradcon/Feminism are simply the expression of ‘the feminine’ as it relates to both females and males. The 64,000,000 dollar question is- what’s the alternative? Is there an alternative? Is there a precedent? A precedent for men, particularly heterosexual, emancipated from the brutal bondage of that nasty, pervasive, corrosive influence of ‘the feminine’?…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kris W October 20, 2012 at 02:24

The garbage being posted, effectively telling men to “man up” via labeling MRA resistance to cultural misandry as “pathetic”, is so utterly disgusting and reinforces my notions that masculinism is total BS. It is nothing more than an attempt to trick men into being good little bitch slaves of the traditionalist matriarchy. Masculinism does not equal MRA. There is nothing braver than telling a room full of women why you won’t date/marry. There is nothing braver than standing up for yourself when the entire world is trying to drag you down.

No one ever got any rights by asking “please sir can I have some more”! And to demand equal rights and an end to grievous abuses IS NOT WHINING! It is standing up to bullies in an honorable and just manner.

The current methods are very effective and are working. Society is almost at the breaking point, and women are already at the breaking point. We need to be attacking both political parties with everything we got. The same tactics we used against feminism from 2006-present can be used to scare the living heck out of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

“Don’t be a manhater, don’t vote Republican”.
“Only male hating bigots vote Democrat”.
“Support equality, vote Libertarian”.

We need to be flooding the net with these messages ahead of the election. I know some may not agree with the Libertarian Party, but it does serve as a way of scaring the Republican and Democratic Party’s. And frankly spoken the various Socialist Party’s keep repeating the same feminist BS bigotry.

P.S

Ron, I didn’t know Spearhead became a feminist lesbian separatist think tank. Women are human beings; sure some human beings are more controlled by their instinct, but not all, and not all instinct is alike. Frankly spoken I don’t care what individuals do or don’t do, as there will always be pretty lousy individuals out there. The only thing that really matters is how society reacts to a given situation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 21, 2012 at 03:22

@The One
Why don’t you start your own website and see how many people are interested in reading your thoughts?

I’m not interested in seeing that, I simply don’t care about convincing anybody of anything.

“No you won’t because the case hasn’t gone to an appellate court. $25M, NY. That’s enough information for you to find the case yourself.”

It is? There are over a million civil cases filed in the US every year lol You’re the one who cited the case so at the very least you should know who is suing who and the court where it was filed.

“I’m well aware of how the legal system works. Even if it gets knocked down to a tenth, that’s still a fortune”

You know nothing. The alleged case may just be vacated. And knocked down to a 1/10 is no forture unless you’re a kid making min. wage. That 2.5m would have to be split with the lawyer and there’s likely some agreement that the plaintiff pays expenses. Lawyers don’t accept cases on contingency for nothing becauseif they lose, and this can happen even with a great case, they may have wasted a $100k or more in their time and that of their staff and office expenses etc.
You got nothing, and it’s time to grow up and face reality about how the world works because 99% of the internet is filled with people like you. In real life you don’t win large judgements based on nothing and people don’t just give money away so stop watching the boob tube and believing nonsense you read in papers.
This guy has a good case and I’m sure some lawyer will grab it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/video-man-steal-snickers-bar-stripped-detained-article-1.1188038

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 21, 2012 at 04:44

So don’t make light of injuries guys have dealt with from feminists. It is no laughing matter, and certainly not grounds for implying they are losers. It’s pretty serious stuff when men with guns come after you, and you should really show a bit more gratitude toward those who deal with that kind of thing on your and other men’s behalf.

Well, first of all I can handle all of my problems on my own but haven’t really had many because I keep one step ahead of them and always take full measure to prevent them from going any further.
And I’m not calling anyone a loser but I’ve noticed in these stories that many men seem to lack that killer instinct where they take action against the person they either sense or even know is going to do something to them. I’m referring here not to kill the opponent but to get them first and setting them up legally. They lack the ability to inflict more damage on someone before they do it to them. It’s the docile people who want to appease that get hurt the most. You must always be vigilent and one step ahead and that should be part of your nature where you don’t even have to think about it.
And btw, I wasn’t referring to lobbying or pressuring some lawmaker where a large group may have a better effect unless you have a lot of influence yourself. I meant that in court it may be better to act as an individual not connected with any group unless you can at least muster a few hundred people to stage a protest outside a court and get a lotof publicity so a judge will be very careful on how she rules.
The men’s movement? They can’t seem to get 3 people to attend anything. There is no MRA, just a bunch incompetent men with quite a few unsophisticated crackpot groups more interested in fighting each other with each one trying to push their own silly ideas and everyone wanting to be Chief. “Too Many Chiefs and Not Enough Indians”
It’s very easy to write a paragraph on some blog but what have any of them done in real life that has accomplished anything? I think you know I’m right. Some of these lazy guys even believe an e-mail means something. It’s doesn’t and is like junk mail and will never get to your Congressman or taken seriously. These guys have offices in your district so find out when he is there (usually around election time) and go speak to him in person. Or at the very least write a letter and send it certified where it has to be signed for and perhaps it will be read.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Common Monster October 21, 2012 at 15:27

Excellent piece, Henry.

Zed already mentioned Karpman’s Drama Triangle, which has been around for ~40 years, so there’s quite a lot on the I-Net about it in general. I’ve given it some thought over the years and offer a slightly different quick take on some important aspects and to illustrate its usefulness.

The drama is created by players switching positions on the triangle, since with two players there’s always an open spot to move to. The players in this instance are two fuzzily identifiable groups (feminists and conservatives), and the rather abstract larger groups ‘men’ and ‘women’.

There’s usually a favorite or ‘home’ stance — women are the victims is feminism’s — but they can switch to persecuting men (a close second), or trying to rescue women (the divorce and domestic abuse industrial complex).

Eventually, all three corners of the triangle are visited by each player. Heck, feminism even claims men are victims (of the Patriarchy), and has persecuted women when they make ‘wrong’ choices. With two sexes, there are six variants in all as available stances, and a dozen when you toss in the conservatives. Anybody’s who is at all astute can fill out the list.

One other thing you’ll notice are women are really into drama. It’s widely advertised on TV as being a Good Thing, in and of itself, regardless of the details. Drama sells. With men, not so much, though sports is obviously an elaborate and favorite form of male drama.

Politics, too. Henry Adams described this as the “systematic organization of hatreds”, so a lot of persecuting is endemic. In an age of show business, it’s also bound to look like a Nickelodeon melodrama.

As I’ve said before, the savvy political thing for the pros to be doing would to be going after the man vote, since both parties are now competing for the woman vote, making the man vote the low demand, low cost vote. 10 million more women than men voted in the 2008 election (for president), and this should increase this year as more men tune out an increasingly irrelevant quarrel over who is better for women.

It’s not clear when, why, or how this is going to change. I think it’s this way because politicians tend to be lawyers, and lawyers always want women on the jury because they’re more gullible and persuadable — so each side thinks it’s the better dude with the superior sales pitch. This is what causes the electorate to look like a stupid single woman having an affair with a married man, thinking this time will be different. More drama is certain to ensue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon October 22, 2012 at 23:33

I came to a startling realization This evening that staggered me a little bit. That realization is this:
The Feminists are right
The Antifeminists are ALSO right.

Think about it. feminism is based around the assumption that women are inferior to men. They push for legislation to make things ‘fair’ because inherently, they recognize the fact that women are inherently inferior to men. They have no pride bound up in avoiding handouts. They REALIZE that they have no chance to compete with men in a fair contest, and so every move they make is designed specifically to handicap men so that things are ‘fair’. They believe that men have always dominated society, and will continue to dominate society forever until and unless women ‘level the playing field’ to remove the ‘advantage’ of men’s inherently superior intelligence, logic, leadership ability, physical strength and speed, work ethic, communications, research, and abstract reasoning.

Antifeminists, however, believe that, in general, women are inherently inferior. They wish for the playing field to remain at the TRUE level, and allow men and women to compete in a true fashion, knowing that in a real competition, men’s inherently superior intelligence, logic, leadership ability, physical strength and speed, work ethic, communications, research, and abstract reasoning will always allow place them in the position of leadership.

Philosophically, they are absolutely no different with each other. They are actually in total agreement that men are, in the end, utterly and unquestionably superior to women.

Feminists do not ‘refuse to see the truth’. They see the truth, know it for what it is. They understand instinctively and on every other level that they are inherently designed by nature and by reality to be inferior to men. If they truly ‘did not understand’ this, they would be content to compete with men in a neutral environment.

The only philosophical difference between the two groups, between one set of humans and another, is a question of how much golf-style handicapping is appropriate. Antifeminists want true skill to be the only determining factor of who gets to ‘win’, and feminists want to increase their opponent’s handicapping until they are, themselves, the only ones capable of ‘winning’.

So it is simply a question of “Do we play fair or do we cheat?” Feminism and antifeminism then becomes resolved down to the question of ethics… is it better to cheat, or is it better to play fair? Feminism’s sole argument with every resolution they push through government, with every change they make to society, with every convert they make, is that civilization has ‘matured’ to the point where cheating is the only way to play. But, unfortunately, cheating is NOT the way to maintain civilization. humans that cheat each other will NOT willingly cooperate to create or maintain civilization.

Feminism is, literally, the downfall of human civilization. By it’s very nature it is utterly incapable of maintaining civilization, since cooperation is the very definition of civilization. And feminism seems to CRAVE this sort of downfall, this destruction effect, since every ‘breakthrough’ they make is one more cheat, and one more blow to the hard-won fabric of civilization.

Now, if you posit that things that improve the human race, the species and civilization are ‘good’, and things that harm the human race, culture, and civilization are ‘evil’, then feminism, with the destructiveness of kali herself, is the ultimate embodiment of evil. It is, to the christian mind, the antichrist.
Is it any wonder that the deity of destruction and chaos in ancient civilization is almost always depicted as a woman?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon October 23, 2012 at 01:26

Good call, Common monster, except for one thing. Going after the ‘man vote’ almost automatically alienates the ‘woman vote’ while going after the ‘woman vote’ gets at least a good chunk of the ‘man vote’ as well.
The political strategists know what they are doing. Ron Paul went after the ‘man vote’, and got it… and wound up alienating the useless majority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: