It wasn’t even a contest. The Hater of the Month for August is closeted dyke and purported social conservative SMK, who managed to insult not only myself but my entire readership with her misandrist nonsense:
These comments are a risible and grotesque amalgam of “Roissyism,†F. Roger Devlin and his wet-dreams of “feral women,†father’s rights victimology, and “masculism.â€
Oh dear, we’re in trouble. First off, only an ignoramus would make such a huge distinction between the gestalts of Roissy and F. Roger Devlin. Their worldviews are nearly identical, springing from the same body of knowledge – the unwritten, unvarnished truth about human sexuality. The primary difference between the two is that Devlin works in the realm of theory, while Roissy and other game advocates exist in the world of applied sciences. And who would oppose father’s rights but a dedicated man-hater?
I see you link to Mary Nemko and Glenn Sacks, both left-wing “masculists.†Nemko is an associate of Warren Farrell, and Sacks apotheosizes Farrell as the “inellectual wellsping of the men’s movement.â€
“Mary?” I was unaware that Mr. Nemko had had a sex change. As for him and Glenn Sacks, who cares about their political beliefs? When a man’s right, he’s right. And what the hell is an “inellectual wellsping?” Your grasp of the English language is strong.
“The Myth of Male Power, “the bible of the “men’s movement,†is arguably the silliest book ever written by someone widely regarded as a “serious scholar†and professional.
I’m not comfortable with the victimization motifs of some wings of the MRA movement, but ultimately, the facts recorded by Farrell, Sacks, and other men’s rights advocates are correct. Anyone who’s done some research into divorce, alimony, and child custody laws knows that men are treated like shit under the current regime. Why do you think men don’t want to get married? No sane man wants to enter into an agreement that will likely end with him living in an apartment with lawn furniture having half of his paycheck garnished to support a selfish bitch who lavishes her unearned spoils on her badboy guy-friend, and no access to his kids to boot.
Although there’s a taliban-wing of the father’s right movement that would like to reverse the gains of 19th century feminism and turn the U.S. into a Westernized version of Saudi Arabia, virtually all “masculists†are left-liberals, sexual egalitarians, absolute cultural determinists, and male feminists who came to feel betrayed by “radical feminists†whom, ludicrously, they caricature as “neo-Victorians†and “biological determinists.â€
And so the truth comes out. A conservative feminist is an oxymoron. If you are in favor of an ideology that has resulted in the unmaking of society (exempting individuals who have no interest in politics and are simply looking out for their own concerns), you have no right to call yourself a conservative. You are an enemy of Western civilization, and you should be outed, shamed, and shunned. As for all “masculists” being “left-liberals,” that’s completely and utterly false; most of the MRA and MGTOW bloggers I read are conservatives or libertarians.
“Masculism†is feminism, feminism for males. They espouse the basic dogmas of feminist ideology, environmental determinism and sexual egalitarianism, and support 80-90% of the feminist agendum: ERA, “gener-neutral “laws with no exceptions; women in combat, total sexual integration of the military, police forces, fire departments, male prisons, etc.; androgynous pedagogy, homosexual marriage, etc.
I would rather see a return to the pre-1965 system, but in the unlikelihood of that happening, I fully endorse these ideas. If women want true equality, I say we give it to them! We’ll see how loudly the feminists cheer for equal rights when they have to fight and die on the battlefield, get shot at by criminals, or any of the other perils that men and only men have to deal with in our world. To paraphrase the old Cherokee curse, may women have everything they desire.
And vicitmization for males. As Paul Gottfired observed, “masculsts†and feminists are “victimologists wearing interchangeable masks. “The only difference between “masculists†and orthodox feminists is that the former believe that men and boys are now more victimized than women and girls by “sexism†and “traditional sex-roles.â€
Masculinists think that men are victimized in our culture? I don’t endorse that viewpoint – it’s unmanly – but I understand it. See; divorce laws, alimony laws, sexual harassment laws, etc.
“Masculists†and the posters on this blog are only united by hatred of women and those who realize that women have a civilizing influence on men , yes even today, and by the view of men as victimized, systemically as a group, by “feminazis†and “chivalrous†traditionalists.
“Women have a civilizing influence on men”? Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, why are people so STUPID? The sex that is apparently more civilized than men is the sex that has members that fantasize about being raped, members who get hot and dripping for men who beat them, members who are sexually attracted to murderers and sociopaths (often putting themselves in danger in the process), members who have no qualms about having their ex-husbands jailed for years in order to steal their hard-earned simoleans, and members who, when their sadistic criminal boyfriends attempt to stab their family members to death, SIDE WITH THE FUCKING BOYFRIEND. Anyone who thinks that women are more moral then men, “a civilizing influence on men,” the “crown of creation,” or some variant thereof, is an shit-for-brains idiot with no comprehension of female sexuality.
I will say it again, and I’ll keep saying it until the morons wise up or shut up: women are amoral. In their natural state, women have no comprehension of morality at all. Their only loyalty is to their pussies and the men who make them wet. If a woman is moral, it is a product of nurture, not nature. As Mr. Devlin wrote:
Men do not have to prove their worthiness to anybody. They are the ones who bear the primary costs of marriage. It is a woman’s responsibility to prove she is worthy of the privilege of becoming a man’s helpmeet and bearing his children. It takes a strict upbringing to form a tiny female savage into such a lady. Today, that form of upbringing is mostly a thing of the past: marriageable women are becoming difficult to find, and the costs of searching for them are getting too high.
A society that doesn’t beat morality into its women will be undone by their mercenary behavior – as the West is being undone now. And in a society in which women are lead around by their clits, the only way for a man to get ahead is game. If you don’t want to expatriate or drop out, you have to learn game and learn to love it. Those are your choices. Pick or perish.
Runner-up for Hater of the Month is Lupo pal Common Reader, who wins points for originality in hating on my manifesto:
So let me get this straight. Roissy’s hobby is deluding 20yo homesick Russian au pairs into thinking they love him enough to let him have unprotected anal sex with them. You guys think this is awesome and will somehow rejuvenate the West. I guess I cannot understand this because I am a girl. Please, manly men, explain.
Well, you make it seem evil when you say it like that. Lupo’s response to CR can be found here.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
small ‘l’ libertarian with a good dose of misanthropy. Women should not attempt to be logical, it goes against their nature.
I think ideally, in a sane world, men and women civilize each other.
Women keep men focused on productive activities. Men keep women’s emotions and hypergamous sexual nature in check.
Notice how influential marriage is on women’s voting patterns. We rarely hear about the need to “civilize” female nature though.
““Masculism†is feminism, feminism for males. They espouse the basic dogmas of feminist ideology, environmental determinism and sexual egalitarianism, and support 80-90% of the feminist agendum: ERA, “gener-neutral “laws with no exceptions; women in combat, total sexual integration of the military, police forces, fire departments, male prisons, etc.; androgynous pedagogy, homosexual marriage, etc.”
This is actually pretty fair critique. Most masculists that I have run into on the ‘net are sexual egalitarianists, support ERA, enforcement of laws in a gender neutral manner. Basically 1st or 2d wave feminists with penises. Masculists basically take the feminist ante of preferential treament for women and raise them equal responsibilities to go with those rights. It is quite telling that fembots refuse to call the masculists on the bet.
I am not one of these masculists, although I most certainly prefer a masculist world in which everyone was to have equal reponsibilities to go with their rights, than the one where we have presently with modern libertine autonomy for women with “traditional” restrictions on male autonomy.
““The only difference between “masculists†and orthodox feminists is that the former believe that men and boys are now more victimized than women and girls by “sexism†and “traditional sex-roles.—
One of the first MRA books I ever read was Andrew Kimbrell’s Masculine Mystique. Basically it is a rip-off of Friedan’s work. The victimology in such tomes is as unattractive if a man does it as if a woman does it. That said, I challenge feminists to point to where the modern culture favors men over women, or to demonstrate that men are not routinely and unlawfully discriminated against in hiring and firing, promotion, on-the-job mortality, relationships, civic duties, health care, and public payola.
“women have a civilizing influence on men , yes even today,”
It is interesting to see the intersection of feminism and traditional Victorian ideals. The victorians believes in feminine moral superiority, so do the fembots. They hijack this cultural legacy to use as a club against men and to condition future feminists to think that they are intrinsically better than men. A better operating example of sexism I don’t think I’ve ever come across.
Here’s the deal: women don’t civilize men, they domesticate them. A big difference. The civilizing sex is the male one, and one can see how this is so by simply examining the behavior of married women vs single women, and the behavior of girls who grow up without their bio father in the home and ones that do. Moreover, it is men who transmit civilization, not women, as evinced by the retrograde societal microcosms otherwise known as the urban ghetto.
“…women are amoral”
So are men if they are not embedded in a patriarchal hierarchy, and the leaders of that patriarchal hierarchy are family guys.
“You guys think this is awesome and will somehow rejuvenate the West.”
It won’t. But neither will continuing on our present course, a course that features unrestrained feminine sexuality. The Roissys of the world are simply male opportunists riding the bomb, Slim Pickens style, down to impact. They are the vultures that are picking at the mostly dead corpse of Western Civ.
Yes, marriage swings female voting patterns 20% to the right. Married women with kids vote 50% Republican.
The left knows this, and thus has TWO major incentives to destroy marriage :
1) Single women vote left-wing, because they want the government to be their man.
2) Two single people pay a lot more tax than a married couple. Hence, the tax rate rises.
The left has a fierce incentive to destroy marriage, and the BetaCons, who are the most impotent and ineffective group in America today, let this happen without the slightest resistance or even awareness.
Is there any group that is a bigger failure in the attainment of its own stated goals? No.
Notice how influential marriage is on women’s voting patterns. We rarely hear about the need to “civilize†female nature though.
This is where social cons should be doing their job if they had an iota of awareness about the world they live in.
But being the very personifications of failure, Betatude, and leftish prudes that they are, they are empty non-entities with zero impact.
Notice how influential marriage is on women’s voting patterns. We rarely hear about the need to “civilize†female nature though.
Actually, Islam is the one religion that DOES talk about this specifically.
I stopped reading at the invocation of Saudi Arabia and Taliban…
The last time that the West was even remotely like Saudi Arabia in restraining female freedom was in ancient , pagan Greece (where in most cities, women held a level of political and economic freedom roughly equal to a prized male slave).
I wish there were some way to create a debate/blogging version of one of those “you must be this tall” signs they use to keep little kids off of roller coasters, but for “you must be this smart and educated to speak your piece.”
Equality has always been a facade, and the more radical feminists planned from the very beginning to use it as a means of turning our patriarchal society into a matriarchal one. Equality has never been a choice. Fortunately for women, they can have liberty (property rights, the ability to choose their own mate, and legal rights) without equality.
Let’s see:
Liberal masculists complaining about inequality are victimologists? Uh, no, Sorry, but that is a CODE BLUE shaming tactic. “Being a man” does not mean being indifferent to the dehumanization and humiliation of other human beings that, uh, just happen to share your sex chromosomes. If we don’t want to think about our concerns, at least think about the concerns of our young sons who are getting treated like garbage. Unless we want to go back to a time when women had little or rights, then we need to be consistent in our so-called “progress” with respect to gender roles. A old maxim of the MGTOW movement is this: “You can’t have it both ways, baby.”
I consider the liberal masculists to be allies for the simple fact that they call feminists, gynocentrists, and others out on their hypocrisy and their misandry. Ultimately, though, the only thing that will secure the rights of men is decreasing the size and reach of government.
One more thing:
SNK merely reinforces what I said for years: conservatives (including women) can be just as steeped in misandry as the cultural left.