Laura Wood, of The (Un)Thinking Housewife, was a blogger who I used to read up until she revealed herself to be as loopy and mentally ill as her intellectual mentor (whose name is not to be spoken on this blog ever again). My comrade Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech has lambasted her in the past as a proponent of conservative female supremacism, as well as attacked her coterie of sycophantic “traditionalist” male commenters. But Laura has managed to outdo herself on this front. In a post entitled “Does Society Need Men’s Rights?” (hat tip: Foseti), she and her compadres have revealed, once and for all, why they simply don’t get it.
Before I leap into the fray, I should mention that while I have described myself and been described by others as an “MRA,” I’ve decided to eschew the label for two reasons:
- It doesn’t describe me. MRA is taken to be shorthand for “men’s rights activist,” and blogging is not activism. Angry Harry is an activist. Paul Elam is an activist. A pseudonymous blogger living on the far side of civilization is not an activist.
- I’m tired of the alphabet soup of acronyms that are frequently slung around this part of the blogosphere. PUA, MRA, HBD, MGTOW – they all sound stupid. No more acronyms for me.
I have my own criticisms of the men’s rights movement (namely the concept of rights, which is bogus, and the idea that they can achieve true gender equality where the feminists have failed) but I consider them fellow travelers because I believe they are a force for good in the world. It would be more accurate to describe me as a men’s rights supporter.
All that aside, let’s get back to the topic at hand. In the past I have criticized conservatives and traditionalists for “not getting it” in regards to sexuality and the feminist dystopia, without fully articulating what the “it” is. I once described the issue as follows:
…Gay marriage? Abortion? Sexual degeneracy? Completely irrelevant side issues when you consider that the singles market is so screwed up that guys have to read a book by a freak wearing a stupid hat in order to figure out how to even get laid. Or that working a minimum-wage job and playing video games all day is more economically sensible then getting married and having children.
This lays out the problem pretty well, but it doesn’t state the core issue at hand – conservatives and traditionalists don’t understand the concept of tit-for-tat. Have you ever wondered whether or not you should support or fight for something or someone? As Advocatus Diaboli put it, there’s a simple pair of questions you should ask yourself in these situations:
Why should I care? What’s in it for me?
This doesn’t apply to stuff like saving the whales, going vegan or any choice that won’t impact your life tremendously, but to decisions that require you to invest a large portion of your life and/or resources into making them happen. What do you get out of it? How will it benefit you? If it doesn’t benefit you, or it actually hurts you, you’d be a fool to bother with it.
Ask yourself this. When the U.S. entered World War II, men were so eager to fight for their country that many teenage boys lied about their age in order to join the military. A little more than two decades later when the U.S. invaded Vietnam, a new generation of young men fled the country, burned their draft cards, sought deferments, and used any other method they could think of to avoid going to war. Why the sea change in just a short amount of time? You can blame antiwar leftists all you want, but since sympathy for communism in the U.S. ran extremely high in the years preceding WWII, you’ll have to explain why they had no influence then but had massive influence in the 60′s.
It was because the men who came of age during Vietnam realized that they would be fighting for nothing. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were real, tangible threats to America, while Vietnam was just some pissant ex-colony in the middle of nowhere. When the Great Depression occurred, the U.S. government acted as a benevolent steward towards its citizens, defusing a potential communist revolution that would have been inevitable had the Ludwig von Mises Institute crowd gotten their way. Whether you think they were right or not, the youth of the 1960′s viewed the government as antagonistic and opposed to their interests. As Muhammad Ali put it, “No Vietcong ever called me a nigger.”
To summarize, young men were happy to die in battle in Europe or the Pacific because they were fighting for a country they believed in, a country worth dying for, against a foe who could destroy it. Young men refused to die in battle in Southeast Asia because they no longer believed in their country, and because their foe posed no threat to it – they would be nothing more than tools for politicians. The fact the America could lose the Vietnam War (Vietnam is flying the commie flag, so shut up you patriotic morons, WE LOST) and still remain a world power is proof of the latter.
What conservatives, traditionalists, white nationalists and their ilk don’t understand is the necessity of offering something of tangible value to the people they need to make their movements successful. Most of the time, their response is to double-down on insults and shaming, finger-wagging anyone who doesn’t want to hop on their train ride to oblivion. Nuh-uh, holmes. It doesn’t work that way. Robert McNamara needed the dirty, smelly hippies in Haight-Ashbury way more than they needed him. It’s not our place to beg YOU for a chance to join your little clique – it’s YOUR responsibility to entice us to join by telling us what we’ll get out of it.
On the few occasions that conservatives and traditionalists aren’t insulting the people they need to stay alive, they DO explain what they have to offer them – and it happens to be less than nothing. A few months back, some clown made a comment at Dennis Mangan’s that made my blood boil when I read it:
I agree the laws need to change. But, in the meantime, it makes no sense for a conservative to argue that men should stop reproducing and pursue hedonism. Life is not without risks. Yes, the paranoia spread by “MRA” and “PUA” types is not entirely without basis: if you get married, there’s a chance your woman will cheat on you, lie about you to the police, divorce you, and take all your money. I don’t care. Do it anyway. If you manage to get 2.1 kids out of her before that happens, you have done your minimum duty. The future belongs to those who show up, as they say.
But that’s just one random idiot on a comment thread. Surely the whole of conservative-dom doesn’t think this way! Au contraire, in the above-linked (Un)Thinking Housewife post, Laura Wood and her commentariat bear the ugliness of their souls for all to see. Just read her response to a commenter who, trapped in holy matrimony to an obstinate wife, cautions other men to avoid marriage:
Are you in the habit of issuing commands to your wife? In a marriage, a wife is obligated to obey but a husband is obligated to love. And when he wants something of his wife, he does not command her. He politely asks her to do something with affection and respect. The same is true of parents when they ask something of their children. They do not boss them around like servants.
I cannot diagnose what has gone wrong in your marriage, but it could just be a phase, a very rocky period. If your wife has changed dramatically since the time you first married her, she may change just as dramatically in the future. I am sure you pray for her and love her. You chose her. She is the mother of your children. I’m sure your children give you immense pleasure. Since you are a Catholic, you know that the most important marital issue for you is how you uphold your vows not how she upholds hers. Whether you are doing the right thing determines your future. There are far worse fates than an unhappy marriage. You are wrong to fear or bemoan suffering. You are committing a serious sin by telling other men not to marry. That is evil. The fact that you have freely chosen a woman who does not please you is not justification for denouncing the institution of marriage or for suggesting that men go outside their culture to marry. You are in grave error in this advice, similar to feminists who go around publicly complaining about their husbands.
Your personal trials have not convinced me of the need for a men’s movement. Men should assert their authority in the world, but we don’t need a men’s rights movement for that.
By the way, you say all your friends are experiencing the same marital difficulties that you are. It’s true that feminism has damaged the respect wives should have for their husbands. Nevertheless, I live in the real world too and your picture of a world with no good women strikes me as distorted. I know many women who love their husbands and take care of them selflessly.
Just read it. While Laura’s rejoinder contains the Not All Women Are Like That nonsense that we’ve become accustomed to, and she automatically assumes that our poor commenter is in the wrong, those aren’t the most obnoxious parts of her screed. (And what’s with that drivel about how, as a Catholic, he’s obliged to uphold his vows but his wife doesn’t have to uphold hers? I was educated as a Catholic and got confirmed and I don’t remember anything like that. I’ll have to ask Alte or David Collard about that.) What offends me most is that her contention that the commenter is “evil” for warning men against marriage due to the risks involved. That’s right – Laura Wood wants men to suffer for her cause.
This is the thin, watery gruel that traditionalists offer men – the chance to be cannon fodder in their culture war, another mark for their con game. They want you, knowing full well that marriage is a minefield surrounded by a piranha-filled moat, to dive in anyway. They expect you to endure pain, misery and humiliation for…for what? The continuation of the white race? The preservation of Western civilization? What YOU want, what is best for YOU – these things never enter their minds.
If that isn’t enough, Jesse Powell, one of Laura’s most frequent commenters, chimes in with his own brand of lunacy. Powell, if you recall, is the chest-pounding “patriarchal” suckup who believes men who are falsely accused of rape should be jailed anyway because it is “the price that must be paid for the social good of protecting women from rape to the best extent that we as men are capable of.” So Mr. Assange, sorry those two Swedish skanks lied about being raped by you, but you’ve got to rot in prison anyway to ensure the female race is defended at all costs. But enough of that tangent, on to the main event:
Speaking as a man, what bothers me the most about the men’s rights movement is that it represents men rejecting their duties and moral responsibilities as men; they attack and undermine what being a man is all about. As a man it is my duty to protect women and to create a functioning order for society overall and men have roles and duties in the overall social order that they are bound to uphold. The MRA, with his blatant disregard for upholding and maintaining the overall order of society, represents a threat to the well being of the community and a danger to precisely the populations that I as a man am bound to serve and protect; women and children.
My purpose in being against feminism is to reverse the harms done to the community by the feminist anti-male and anti-child agenda. My purpose in being against the men’s rights movement is to minimize the potential harm that could be done by the MRM’s anti-woman and anti-child agenda. My goal is not to serve the interests of men or to serve the interests of women, my goal is to serve the interests of the society overall, and it needs to be kept in mind that it is the interests of children that ultimately come first ahead of the interests of either men or women.
I consider myself to be a part of the patriarchal community, not a part of the men’s rights community. There are standards that I seek to impose upon any men who seek to join the patriarchal community and the first and most important of those standards is the acknowledgment and acceptance of men’s duties towards women and the next generation. An MRA can’t expect to be welcomed into the patriarchal community while seeking to undermine and attack the fundamental values that those in the patriarchal community adhere to.
I hate to burst your bubble boy, but there’s no such thing as an unconditional duty. Men in eons before protected and provided for women and children because they got something out of the deal, not because of some nebulous “moral responsibilities.” A man protects, provides for and loves his wife because she maintains his house, sexes him, rears his children and loves him in return. A man is not required to do anything for his defiant, controlling little shrew of a wife any more than a woman is required to do anything for her layabout, philandering, absent husband.
This goes back to the metaphorical concept of the “sexual contract” I wrote about over a year ago. Jesse Powell wants men to uphold their end of the bargain without any guarantee that women will uphold theirs. He wants you to sacrifice for absolutely nothing. Go ahead, you stupid, hairless, Y-chromosomed biped, get married. Bust your behind five days a week so your wife can blow it all on clothes and useless junk. Stay faithful to her so she can deny you sex because she’s “not in the mood.” Raise children with her so she can cuckold you with the next-door neighbor and poison the little sprogs against you when you’re not around. Give up your hobbies and social life to be home constantly so she can accost you for “being gone all the time.” It’s your masculine DUTY! Stop whining, grow up and fulfill your “moral responsibilities,” you blubbering manboy! Ehe macht frei!
Boy, with an unbeatable offer like that, I just CAN’T see why men aren’t flocking to the traditionalist cause. Just can’t see it at all.
Laura Wood, you are a loathsome, repugnant, evil woman for luring men to their doom. You are a siren enticing naive men to their death with your poison song of “tradition.” If there is a hell, you will surely be damned to it.
Jesse Powell, you are not a patriarch – you are a weak, pathetic momma’s boy groveling for womens’ approval. A true patriarch would spit on you as the spineless cur that you are.
I’m not even going to touch that gibbering schizophrenic named Josh F. (who also goes by the name “thordaddy”) and his slobberings about “devout dykism” and “anti-Supremacy.” At least GBFM is funny.
This is why the conservatives and traditionalists are doomed. They are offering men struggle without triumph, suffering without reward. They have nothing aside from appeals to “duty” and “tradition,” urging men to defend a culture that no longer exists, to protect a civilization that is corrupt and deserves to die. Their attempts to shame men into taking up their banner won’t work, because they have no practical way of punishing anyone who refuses to fall in line. Traditionalists simply cannot answer why anyone should care about them, and this has condemned them to defeat and dishonor.
Women get the men they deserve, and Western women are getting men who are abandoning civilization in droves, and there’s not a thing that Laura Wood and her cohort can do to stop them. How they’ll live their lives is up for them to decide. Some will become cads and pickup artists, preying on women for carnal pleasure and giving them nothing but a good Friday night rogering for their trouble. Some will go ghost, dying as bachelors without a day of being ensnared in marital bonds. They’ll work the bare minimum they need to get by, and spend their paychecks on beer and useless baubles. They’ll let doors slam in womens’ faces, they’ll ignore them if they see them getting assaulted, and they won’t shed a single tear when their choices ruin them.
And I understand, without condoning or condemning, why they will do what they do.
{ 143 comments… read them below or add one }
The comment on Mangan’s isn’t a traditionalist conservative. That’s “n/a”, formerly known as “Anon”, the evil scientist of the Nordicist brand of white nationalism.
The people you have named aren’t conservatives or traditionalists. Both are terms rooted in race and culture born out of that race. None of the names you mention subscribe to paleoconservatism.
One cannot claim to be a traditionalist unless they name whose traditions. One cannot claim to be a conservative unless they name the people they are conserving. Without either one is an ideologue, i.e. a variant of every other nation wrecking scheme thrust upon us.
Re, the Catholic thing about a man upholding his vows, yes that is correct. That does not mean he has to suffer an evil wife.
From my perspective the MRAs are generally doing good work. Where they veer off into PUA/Gaming I see that as subscription to the general dissipation of the West in mindless Leftism. The Whores they bang are no better or worse than the Alphas who bang them. I urge them to continue in their mutual suicide, since both parties have opted out, they are no concern of mine. That would be the paleocon position I think.
I don’t seek to change them, I just want them out of my way. I would class Laura Wood and the he who shall not be named amongst their number. They are all nation wreckers as far as I am concerned and I wish them all the very best of ill.
Why the sea change in just a short amount of time? You can blame antiwar leftists all you want, but since sympathy for communism in the U.S. ran extremely high in the years preceding WWII, you’ll have to explain why they had no influence then but had massive influence in the 60′s.
Dude, are you serious? Hello, in WW2 we fought NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan – FASCIST countries hated by the Communists (and one of which was at war with the USSR) – whereas in Vietnam we fought COMMUNIST North Vietnam, which was supported by the COMMUNIST USSR and China. It should be no surprise to anyone that the “anti-war” Left is pro-war-against-Nazis but anti-war-against-Commies.
The big “threat” to the USA from Germany and Japan was propaganda bullshit. Germany and Japan had no capability to invade the US, period. The “real, tangible” threat to the USA was a total invention of Roosevelt and the State Department.
good points. Though I suspect she may be incredibly stupid and myopic, rather than evil.
Laura Wood and her ilk remind me of the classic mummy; the dry, dessicated remnants of a culture long dead, unable to see past their memories of the past to see the wasteland that is the present.
Great article. One quibble, though:
“you’ll have to explain why they had no influence then but had massive influence in the 60′s.”
That’s easy. The Left, propelled by the Frankfurt School, had sufficiently advanced itself through the institutions by then to gain critical mass among the youth and students.
I don’t know how to put this bu, ah, err, ahem, cough…Tarl is right.
The war against Communism was “the Good War” and the war against Nazism has brought us ruin.
American hegemony has brought us our own ethnic cleansing with Alphas and Whores, Laura Woods and Austers on the Right and the most loathsome of misanthropists on the Left.
A pox on them all.
When the broke college chicks are turning tricks, any man with an ounce of self-respect and awareness knows not to commit to most women these days.
And any man who believes that his little girl isn’t capable of such things is a fool in this day and age.
Conservatives need to wake up. Their daughters aren’t any better than the others looming about in society these days. They’ll do things in desperation or even in desire but one thing is for sure, they have absolutely no sense of shame.
Wtf would you know demirogue? You haven’t sired any children yet I bet you think of yourself as a stud.
You, you, are the disease, and your extermination along with the whores you despise is the necessary inoculation our nation’s require.
This world is your Judeo-American creation. We are all inundated by your cultural wasteland. Yet all you want to do is bitch and moan about the fact the majority of women are as empty and desolate as you.
If you had any sense and integrity you’d identify the source of the problem rather than picking at the scabs.
Hannagan: It was the Cold War against Soviet communism that cemented America’s position as “world policeman”. Sure, WW2 brought US troops into the heart of Europe, but the Cold War was a necessary follow-up in reaching our current situation.
What if the US had chosen to retreat and isolate itself after WW2 and just ignored the Russkies?
I don’t think of myself as a stud. I’m just relaying what I’m seeing out in the real world. And just because I write about it doesn’t mean I’m an active participant in it.
The source of the problem? A culture that tells women they are strong, independent, and don’t need men.
The US at least did the right thing and ameliorated their disastrous intervention against Germany by taking on the Soviets.
I’d have preferred, as do all true traditionalists, that the US had stayed out of WWII and let it play out in the first place.
You’re right though that “the Cold War against Soviet communism …cemented America’s position”. But that position was as dominant superpower that had done itself alot of economic and social damage in getting there. The “world policeman†notion is an American ideal that has damaged her irreparably.
Everyone hates the cops that don’t come from her own people.
The US should have isolated itself prior to WWI, as should Oz.
Even today, what matter is it to you if some Muslim takes a broken bottle to his daughter’s cunt? (actual news story in support of ongoing invasion). What should matter more is the complete abnegation of your country in the face of Leftist/Utopian/Jewish assault.
Ha, seems that today is free bashing of the Non-Thinking Housewife and her acolytes:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/12/15/dealing-with-the-reality-on-the-ground/
Don’t give a crap about the discussions of previous wars, but I will say this: I don’t have a fucking duty to be cannon fodder. So fuck right off, you bunch of CONservatives.
The source of the problem? A culture that tells women they are strong, independent, and don’t need men.
Yes, then we are in agreement demirogue. Attack the cause of cultural annihilation, not the victims of it (even though they run rampant in their shameless “victory”).
It’s not feminism that has ruined women. Its the notion that we are all independent. No ties, no tradition, no race.
Roissy is merely the other side of the coin. He deserves Whores and the Whores deserve him. If you really wanted to topple the system that creates that system then you attack those who created the whole dynamic in the first place. Look at those in power. Those who prescribe what you watch, what you listen to, what the laws shall be, and determine the political process.
They are the people we should attack.
“Don’t give a crap about the discussions of previous wars, but I will say this: I don’t have a fucking duty to be cannon fodder. So fuck right off, you bunch of CONservatives.”
Spot on. Again, like the man said, there are only two questions. Why should I care? What’s in it for me?
If there are not good answers for both regarding why I should do X for the US, then I say let the country burn. And from what I see and know, even assuming there’s at least one good answer to the former, there are no good answers to the latter. The US sold out my interests, on every possible level, over the last three decades. At least. So there we are.
Best. Rant. Ever.
Stop being an apologist, Pat Hannagan. Roissy and the like have said, several times, that they wouldn’t be doing what they do if women didn’t liked it.
That’s the problem. The honest, hardworking men are being left aside by a random thug at a bar, so if our regular guy wants to get laid he has to either:
a)Learn Game.
b)Use hookers, I mean, “escorts”.
Also, even if you don’t go all out in a drill regime, Game is a must to navigate the shark-filled waters that are our current society.
Excellent post. The duty as a Catholic to love your wife is accurate. However, the feminazi in question neglected to mention the following.
“However, the husband does have the final authority, and will give account to God for his decisions. Often this responsibility is not a privilege but a burden. He needs the courage to stand for what he is convinced is best, even when the wife or children disagree.”
And the coup de gras
“Again, the husband’s failure to properly fulfill his duties does not justify the wife in failing to fulfill her duties”
Bravo, Ferd! One of your best posts yet.
Agree with GX. Roissy is merely adapting to the current climate. To call women victims of their own doing is laughable. They know exactly what they’re doing. That they can get away with it and still believe in fairy tales is what the real issue is.
How many here have come across women that tell of their “wild past”? Or their entitlement to sex without consequences? Or that believe nature is working yet don’t comprehend abortion and birth control aren’t even natural?
As I wrote, any conservative that thinks his little girl is different is deluded. Bristol Palin is the most prime example of this.
From a theological perspective, this is partly incorrect. Men have the freedom to leave their wife if she behaves in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with the expectations of the Church (presumably, this is Laura’s real audience). A man has the freedom in Christ to divorce his wife if he finds her to be reprobate in her treatment of him and his faith or that her own professed faith is utterly false.
We are all responsible for how we affect others. There is no spiritual defense before God that “he was an adult and he chose that so I’m 100% in the clear.” If a man is driven to adultery by a very bad wife, she will bear a great deal of punishment in the next life because it was her violations of the second commandment that laid the foundation for his sin. We are our spouse’s keeper.
Is it righteous for a man to not divorce his wife in such a situation? It most certainly is. However, he should only stay there as long as he can serve God properly. If his wife’s behavior compromises his faith and ability to obey God, then divorce is the only choice that makes sense.
“I have my own criticisms of the men’s rights movement (namely the concept of rights, which is bogus … It would be more accurate to describe me as a men’s rights supporter.”
The concept of rights is bogus for the purposes of a movement or activism, but fine for just being a supporter?
[It's bogus for a unified political program. - ed.]
There’s far too much debate over what we should call ourselves and it’s all bollocks. MRA is a useful term because its meaning is clear. You’re rather obviously in this camp (by your own admission, didn’t your description use to include ‘men’s rights activist/advocate’?), and so are a lot of other people who fuss over the acronym.
[Too inaccurate. I'm a men's rights supporter. And don't you DARE try to abbreviate it.]
I like that you didn’t even bother with Josh F. From what I have read, he is tiresome and lost inside his own mind.
If Jesus were born today, he would be a MGHOW.
Come to think of it … he WAS.
A priceless comment from Laura Wood:
“Fatherhood is its own reward and that is true even for the man who has been abandoned. But even when fatherhood is not a conventionally happy experience, the man who has fulfilled his duties to others has infinitely more than the man who has not, even if he has been left by his wife. I don’t worry about the man who has been betrayed as much as the woman who betrays. She has lost everything important while he still has his humanity.
What advice would I give men who have been left and betrayed? I would advise them to love their children. I would advise them to preserve their manhood from narcissism and fear. And I would advise them to have confidence in God. That is the greatest truth. God is there.â€
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/12/does-society-need-mens-rights/
Strange that we should all be writing about TTH at the same time. I was surprised to see that she linked to me and Terry, too.
These traditionalists follow a very simple logic:
1. Average women, empowered by feminism, have left a disgusting mess in their trail in the past 40 years in the form of dysfunctional fatherless homes, rampant sluthood, false rape charges, unfair divorce and a bloated government bureucracy.
2. It is the duty of traditionalist men to man up and take responsibility for cleaning up this mess. They must fulfill their duties at all costs even if women aren’t expected to fulfill any duties at all. They should just keep getting married in order to uphold Western Civ, no matter how risky it becomes. Women may contribute to civilizational decline; men may not.
I swear traditionalists like Laura Wood and Mark Richardson are worse than feminists. At least the latter are usually honest about their intention to screw men over. Just look at the idiotic comments of Laura Wood and her minions at the links PMAFT posted. They want all of us to become cannon fodder for a deservedly dying civilization.
I’v stated this before but I guess it should be stated again: if women want to live in a Christian monogamous patriarchy, they must forfeit their current rights which are incompatible with such a system. It’s that simple. The West is in the current mess because women have changed their behavior and abandoned their patriarchal responsibilites. It logically follows that only women can stop their feminism – by changing their behavior. They have power, influence and privileges; if they don’t like the current system, they should act. Expecting men to “man up†and clean up the mess that women created is delusional and unfair.
Laura Wood = lumpenfeminist
Fur… I’m glad you didn’t get to me. Afterall, what have you said about the MRM that isn’t exactly what I’ve already said?
The MRM is A MALE LIBERATIONIST movement. Period.
Deny it if you will, but you just wrote exactly that, so why bother?
It’s ironic that your “man-ness” parrots the spearhead with the spearhead spreading radical male liberation while it bans God-fearing men from exercising their maximum moral autonomy. How manly is that?
Speaking of manly, what exactly does a real man look like to a radical liberationist?
And what do you have against men possessing God-ordained free will and the ability to exercise maximum moral autonomy?
[oh my gawd you fuckity fucktard you've butthexed my brain with ur ianane driveeeell. LZOZLZLZLZLZLZLZLZ!!!! - ed.]
“Why should I care? What’s in for me?”
I wish I lived in a world where people were truly altruistic.
But I don’t, and I don’t see why I should be the only one making sacrifices.
I was married for 17 years, have two kids, and nothing to show for it but the cancelled checks of my child support payments, children who have been turned against me, and an unshakeable feeling that all my life has been a waste.
I should advise young men to sign up for the same experience? Yeah, right, misery loves company. Having personally experienced the harm that modern marriage does to men, I don’t think it’s a sin to warn men about it. I think it’s a sin to urge them to do such a terrible thing to themselves.
Amazing rant, it baffles me today that so many of my friends still tow the line and get married, worse than that, they beleive in marriage and beleive their women love them. It’s okay to get married, for a variety of reasons, but you need to accept the fact that it’s not permenant and you may get raped by the courts. It is in men’s best interest when entering a marriage to have a cut off point, a point where you will leave her before she leaves you, unless by some miracle she is being a good wife.
If you have kids, leave when they are old enough to cope, 10+ years old is good, anything over 6, as they are still developing at 6. Divorce her ass first and if you can’t, expatriot yourself to a tropical country.
If you don’t have kids, leave when you are no longer getting the benefits of being in a relationship. A girl i know told me that her and her husband “broke up” – i scolded her saying “no, you are getting a divorce, marriage isn’t a going out.” she just laughed, this is what you are dealing with guys, so break up with the girl first signs of decay.
..defusing a potential communist revolution that would have been inevitable had the Ludwig von Mises Institute crowd gotten their way.
Pure disinformation.
[Read some f-ing history. - ed.]
So, according to Jesse Powell’s call for male sacrifice…
….Can we assume that the next time a man is falsely accused of rape, that Jesse Powell will valiantly volunteer to take his place?
That sounds like the logical conclusion of his chain of logic.
Unless, of course, he is someone who wants others to make sacrifices, rather than himself…
_______________________________
It is pretty obvious that losers like Jesse Powell can only believe what they do, since they have resigned themselves to the fact that they will never get laid. No man who actually gets laid would have the sort of opinion about false rape accusations that he has.
So he wants the men who get laid to suffer. It really is that simple.
Ferds,
Every time a man is falsely accused of rape, I think you should issue a call for Jesse Powell to take his place. By Jesse’s own stated position, this would be a logical and non-hypocritical action for him to take.
Bring tons of visibility to Jesse Powell’s support of innocent men being jailed. Let’s see what happens then.
The west has somehow managed to dump all the duties to men, and still called women oppressed.
So it is my duty to uphold my wows, while she is not asked to?
That is not a contract, that is bending over to a ten foot lateral pole attached to the front of a bulldozer coming your way. Your butt towards the dozer.
A young man in the west today owes nothing to anybody.
Especially not his life to protect a woman when the southern hordes start migrating.
Oh wait. They started.
On a similar note;
“Look. If they are dying from hunger (i.e. Africa), or if they are having kids they cant support (i.e. Europe), then they should not breed”
“You eugenistic fascist.”/”Having babies is a human right”
“Fine. So if having babies is a human right, then since babies come from sex, having sex is a human right. So, I want my human right to be fullfilled by women I chose, it is my right”
“You sexist fascist”
“If sex is not a human right, then having babies is not a human right. And if I decide not to help out some collective sluts to raise their bastards, if they did not respect my human non-right, that is my human right”
“You heartless fascist, what about the kids”
“What about the mother having thought about that?”
“You fascist”
And so on.
That is why any man owes nothing to a system, to a collective, to a people who think the man owes them everything, but the man has no right to demand anything.
“It’s bogus for a unified political program. – ed.”
Correct, though I think there is possibility for single issue causes. How many can you list, off the top of your head, that MRAs (obviously not including the socons) unanimously agree on? Half a dozen come to mind.
There are those of us who see the MRM more as an inevitable, organic movement that can’t be controlled or led – I think your writings indicate that you think the same way – but call ourselves MRAs because we want to hurry that NON-unified, EXTRA-political and DIS-organised program on and maximise its effects.
“Too inaccurate. I’m a men’s rights supporter. And don’t you DARE try to abbreviate it.”
Heh. Wouldn’t dream of it.
But really – what’s the distinction between an ADVOCATE and a SUPPORTER?
Don’t worry, Ferdinand – I know you’re with the good guys. And I appreciate what you do. I just find the debates around the ‘MRA’ tag to be very boring. I find it much easier to just use it and not worry too much about how its meaning could be (wilfully mis)interpreted. Let’s face it, they’re going to do that whatever we call ourselves.
Vietnam vs. WWII is not all that clear-cut. First off, there was considerable pacifism, on both the left and the right, and sympathy for Hitler/the Third Reich. The DAR gave Woody Guthrie an award for cutting an album in 1940 urging Americans to stay out “Mr. Roosevelt’s War For Jews.” Hitler’s stupidity in declaring War upon the US guaranteed our entry into the European theater. At any rate, a nuclear armed Germany and Japan would have been a nightmare (both were helping each other’s nuclear program, Japan’s was actually further along). The Pacific as a Japanese Lake and the Atlantic as a German one would have led inexorably into the invasion and enslavement of the US. Only hard core lunatics by October 1941 could deny the threat of both the US, given the rapidity and scope of the Axis victories (no WWI static fronts and trench warfare).
In Vietnam, only the upper class hippies dropped out. Working class and middle class Whites volunteered as usual. It was the fear of a nuclear war with the USSR and China (as with Korea) that denied victory by waging limited war. Vietnam is like Iraq and Afghanistan today. The Marines have no problem recruiting for active war zones, meanwhile the Upper Classes (and non-Whites save some working class third generation Latino/Mexicans) are totally absent from the casualty lists and in fact, the military itself.
This is not shocking. The New England states threatened to secede to seek peace with Britain in the War of 1812. They and the Mid-Atlantic states opposed the War and prosecution of it, in 1845 with the Mexican-American War. Kentucky and Maryland were hotbeds (as well as Southern Ohio) of Confederate sympathizers and Maryland actively considered joining the Confederacy. New England again opposed the Spanish American War, and the Upper Midwest WWI. As did Union Organizers and the various Communists and such.
Only WWII had widespread public and regional support. The usual pattern is New England opposes War for fear of hurting trading interests, or advantages to Southern/Western states, or diluting Old Money aristocratic power (by creating new “empires”) with various classes/strata aligned with regional interests.
What is shocking is how rapidly marriage and family has changed, to a point where the best most men can get, is a woman who has chased Alphas to the point of being unfit/incapable of marriage to Joe Average. And its Jane Average that has changed. She’s now capable of having part-time affections with the Ultra Hunk, Big Man on Campus (and beyond). She has to share him with say, Elin Nordgren or Scarlett Johanssen, but she can still have a part-time Alpha.
And for Jane Average, part-time Alpha beats full-time Beta. OK. But you can’t push on a string. You can’t force men to commit, anymore than Westmoreland could force Upper Class men to enlist in a war they did not support. And here its completely flipped.
If most of the time, most of America was deeply divided on most Wars (1812, Mexican-America War, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghan War), it was united in the sense that Jane Average had only Joe Average as an option. Not Tom Brady.
I wonder if Jesse Powell would change his stance if he were to be falsely accused of rape. Jessy reminds me of some neo-con who posted on TCS Daily several years ago on the notion that the occasional mistaken execution of innocent people was a legitimate price to pay for public safety. I wondered if this guy would volunteer to be executed if it would result in a safer society.
[oh my gawd you fuckity fucktard you've butthexed my brain with ur ianane driveeeell. LZOZLZLZLZLZLZLZLZ!!!! - ed.]
LZOZL
I hate when there are people arguing my side who are really stupid. That just makes me look bad.
About TTH post you quoted, she really tears into that Max guy, who didn’t say anything wrong at all. He was making some good points, and I don’t detect anything wrong with his doctrine.
I don’t know what David would say, but I think the following:
No Catholic should be encouraging people to marry. Marriage is only one vocation among others, and it is in no way superior to the religious or single life. If anything, we should all be praying for more religious vocations. I think many men and women are being pushed into marriage who aren’t suited for it, and I think that might be one of the things weakening the institution. It’s wrong to say that the sacrament of marriage is bad (as it is defined by God through Natural Law), but I think modern marriages are a far cry from the sacrament and just because something is good doesn’t mean everybody has to do it. Of course, I am biased on that front as I often criticize Marriage 2.0, so perhaps I am not speaking objectively.
Each Catholic is obligated to uphold any sacred vows he/she has made, including marriage vows. But that does not mean you have to put up with abuse, that you may not leave a situation that makes you permanently miserable (by staying with a friend, for instance), or that you may not criticize the inappropriate behavior of your spouse. Men are supposed to be washing their wives in the water of the word, and they are responsible for telling us hard truths sometimes.
I think what Laura means is that breaking vows weighs on your own soul, so you have to uphold them, even if your spouse lets you down. But, as far as I can tell, he isn’t discussing breaking his vows (through adultery, abuse, or gross neglect, for instance). He’s just tired of living with a miserable shrew, which is understandable.
Max would probably be better off being harder with his wife, rather than kinder. It would be more loving even, as it might help her improve the state of her own soul. He should probably just leave her for a while, so that she realizes what she’s missing. Sounds like she’s taking him for granted. She probably needs more and harder sex, too. That usually helps calm them down a bit, and reminds them of who’s in charge.
[Thanks. That makes more sense. - ed.]
Alte,
You misinterpret the message and give implicit sanction to radical liberalism.
No one is saying to young males, “Be foolish and marry a corrupt female and have kids with her.” Shouldn’t we assume that the conversation already grants this?
What IS BEING SAID to young males is, “no marriage, no kids.” Period. The self-evident implication being that there are no good women. This is clearly false and so those advocating this “no marriage, no kids” absolutism are advocating de facto homo-ism. They are advocating a desolate life of radical autonomy that in no way helps a boy become a man. So what is this MRM anyway?
There was at one time a different between a right and a Right. That is, people were generally understood to have rights (you might call them civil rights) before they had the Inalienable/Human Rights. Rights, once upon a time, were more synonymous with having license, which were granted by the State or understood by social contract. Today we might call some of them privleges or entitlements.
The idea that other people have an obligation to you in any way, including leaving you and your property alone, just by the virtue of having been born to human parents is indeed ludicrous. This idea is clearly not played out in reality, or there would be no concept of ‘Men’s Rights’. It would simply be understood. Of course the reality is that there is always an interplay of power between individuals and groups which will allow for the establishment of a certain amount of license for whatever particular behavior, which tend not to be evenly and fairly distributed.
On the ‘Traditionalists’, activist ‘PUAs’ and several other ostensibly sociopolitically minded groups; I don’t think most of them are really interested in ‘saving’ Civilization (which in most cases actually involved fundamentally altering it so much that you are really talking about destroying Civilization). They are interested in weathering the Kali Yuga.
Roissy et al have chosen a method of personal preservation. In part they compartmentalize their internal beliefs from their external deeds; practicing a ketman for the purposes of not alienating themselves from their culture and peers. There is obviously a component of intellectual legacy rather than a literal one. That if you are able to provide a solid method for fellow intellectual travelers to ‘Ride the Tiger’ and engage in the mainstream culture they have better chances of both surviving with their private beliefs intact due to not experiencing soulcrushing alienation and defeat and will possibly be able to promote change from the inside when the situation rises. They are mainstream ingroup infilitrators to an extant, and prey on their lessers (who are often really their enemies) for their own benefit. Among them, but not of them; as it was written.
The Traditionalists are more about deliberately alienating themselves from mainstream culture and preserving their own community, which will presumably one day come into dominance. The bizarre self-sacrificial provisions aren’t meant as a method for social change but a method for selecting the ingroup. Those who are destroyed in the process are irrelevant as they were never part of the ingroup, which is defined by avoiding the probable disaster that the Traditionalists promote.
The real problem with these people is that they think ‘a man’ is something other than an adult human male – that you must be an adult human male PLUS something to be ‘a man’ – and the something is apparently a crippling burden.
Going on their own definitions, then, they are not okay for ‘men’ to have rights – see aforementioned crippling burden – and they are also not okay for us ‘male non-men’ to have rights either.
I wonder, how many of their minds it has crossed, that the act of defining us as ‘non-men’ is what pissed us off in the first place.
The shaming has been going on for decades now – what on earth makes them think that MORE shaming will reverse the tidal wave they have created?
Thordaddy,
What IS BEING SAID to young males is, “no marriage, no kids.â€
No. What is being said is ‘Know what the laws are, and how they are very different from what they were 50 years ago’.
If a man still wants to marry knowing this, then solutions provided include getting a pre-nup, moving to a non-Western country and marrying a woman there, etc. as a means to manage risk. Surely you cannot disagree with this.
The self-evident implication being that there are no good women.
Nope. The implication is that only a fraction (25-33% in my estimation) of women are sufficiently ‘good’. There are thus not enough to go around.
Thordaddy, would you marry a woman who has had, say, 15 sexual partners prior to marriage? Answer this question in good faith.
those advocating this “no marriage, no kids†absolutism
Again, this is not being advocated at all.
They are advocating a desolate life of radical autonomy that in no way helps a boy become a man.
Being a pickup artist having sex with beautiful women is not desolate. And what qualifies you to decide what makes someone a man?
Along those lines, what are you doing to help girls become women?
Snark,
I wonder if these nuts trying to shame guys into ‘becoming a man’ have either :
a) Made these sacrifices themselves, realize they have been swindled, and trying to drag down others with them, OR
b) Are trying to tell others to do something they would never do themselves.
What do you think?
Even if a man finds a decent woman to marry, the current state of society truly ties his hands in being the head of his household. He is merely a figurehead, and sometimes not even that. Even a good wife can be very difficult to handle, so our primary concern should be placing men back in their God-given and righteous place as Head of House without legally tying their hands behind their back like that.
A desolate life? Why should life be desolate just because you aren’t married? The single or consecrated life brings blessings and opportunities that a married life does not, and being unmarried does not necessarily imply that a man is socially isolated. That is a very Protestant view that I do not share. I suspect that much of the “Catholic hand-wringing” from TTH is actually just a reflection of her white nationalist leanings, which I obviously do not share. It is not as if there are a dearth of Catholics in the world, so we all have to go rush to breed.
I do not discourage men from marrying, nor do I encourage it. Each man needs to decide for himself if he can carry the burden and responsibilities of husbandry and fatherhood, or if he is called to something else. Perhaps just for a time, perhaps for a lifetime. I feel I am obligated to tell them the truth of their situation and present them with aid and advice that can truly help them. I will not lie to them, or paper over the sad state of affairs. They need to know what they are getting into, so that they can walk in fully prepared or find a better use for their efforts. Men, after all, are people too.
And Christian men are my brothers in Christ. I have to love them accordingly. How can a woman claim to love her Christian brothers and then tell them to suffer the indignity of being mistreated by their wives? Her love should make her burn with protective concern and righteous anger for their plight. I do think TTH sincerely does love her brothers, but I think that in this particular case, her love is falling a bit short. She should be willing to sacrifice more on their behalf.
What we need are more unmarried men who can concentrate on reforming society and the Church. That would be a Godly purpose for their lives. Just lining themselves up as sexual cannon-fodder is not only a cruel suggestion, it is counterproductive. We don’t need more marriage, we need better marriage. And we won’t get better marriages without radical reform. And we won’t get radical reform as long as men line themselves up meekly for the slaughter.
If Jesus were born today, he would be a MGHOW.
Come to think of it … he WAS.
Yes, of course! It is a bizarre and completely un-Christian idea that men have to marry to become men. So, Jesus wasn’t a man? The Pope isn’t a man? Monks and priests aren’t men?
For clarification, I am not advocating fornication. That is a separate topic. This is about pressuring men to marry.
“Snark,
I wonder if these nuts trying to shame guys into ‘becoming a man’ have either :
a) Made these sacrifices themselves, realize they have been swindled, and trying to drag down others with them, OR
b) Are trying to tell others to do something they would never do themselves.
What do you think?”
Neither. I think they
c) Have married to genuinely Christian women and are living marriage 1.0, and are unable to understand how things are different outside of their own insular little existences, OR
d) Intend to marry genuinely Christian women and are living in blind faith that everything will work out fine for them.
Whiskey said: The Pacific as a Japanese Lake and the Atlantic as a German one would have led inexorably into the invasion and enslavement of the US.
The Germans never even attempted to match the British Fleet. They were happy for Britain to maintain her empire. It was the British who felt challenged by a European continent dominated by the Germans.
The Japanese had for a long time served as a British ally in the Pacific. It was the Americans, seeking to expand their empire, who convinced the British not to renew her alliance with Japan. The Americans turned an ally into an enemy and provoked her into war.
By that stage Hitler had allied with Japan as Germany was opposed by the British led Europeans who preferred a Europe under Communism, than an Eastern Europe under the Germans. Once Japan attacked the Yanks Hitler had to declare war on the Yanks.
Hitler, Germans, and thus all Whites were played like a violin.
“I think they
c) Have married to genuinely Christian women and are living marriage 1.0, and are unable to understand how things are different outside of their own insular little existences, OR
d) Intend to marry genuinely Christian women and are living in blind faith that everything will work out fine for them.”
c’) Have married to ostensibly Christian women and are living marriage 1.0, blissfully unaware that they’re sitting on a powder keg that’s about to blow. As Alte points out above, the wife holds all the legal advantages. Who knows if and when she will decide to wield them?
Evidence: the number of divorced men who never saw it coming. (Myself included.)
I waited 11 1/2 half months for post of the year! It was worth it.
My brother works in customer service for a local authority, a septuagenarian walks in asks him, “Are you married?”, “No” my brother replies. The old man continues, “I’ve been married for 50 years and got divorsed last year, this year has been the best year of my life, son never get married.”
Alte:
“Each Catholic is obligated to uphold any sacred vows he/she has made, including marriage vows. But that does not mean you have to put up with abuse, that you may not leave a situation that makes you permanently miserable (by staying with a friend, for instance), or that you may not criticize the inappropriate behavior of your spouse. Men are supposed to be washing their wives in the water of the word, and they are responsible for telling us hard truths sometimes.”
David Collard:
Yes, you don’t have to take abuse. In fact, a husband should have nearly zero tolerance of that. Tell her to STFU and then, if that fails, simply leave her alone for an hour or so to stew in her own juice. People never read Ephesians carefully. Alte and Laura (the Full of Grace one) are the only women I have ever known who have taken on board the bit about how husbands are meant to “cleanse” their wives. A husband leads his wife to God. I must say I think most men are hopelessly inadequate in this area today. A Traditional Catholic priest once said this to my wife and I – God will ask (I speak figuratively) the husband for an account of his stewardship first (cf. God speaking to Adam and to St Joseph first, not their wives).
Alte:
“Max would probably be better off being harder with his wife, rather than kinder. It would be more loving even, as it might help her improve the state of her own soul. He should probably just leave her for a while, so that she realizes what she’s missing. Sounds like she’s taking him for granted. She probably needs more and harder sex, too. That usually helps calm them down a bit, and reminds them of who’s in charge.”
David Collard:
Yes, I sometimes think that is exactly why God invented sex. It does tend to remind the woman who is on top, so to speak. Men have become ludicrously soft on their wives. Most women need firmer treatment, not more gentling. This is one of the problems with the MRA guys. They just don’t get it. Yes, they are soft and cute looking, but they are not morally better than men. They need a firm hand. The honest ones will admit it.
“Fur… I’m glad you didn’t get to me. Afterall, what have you said about the MRM that isn’t exactly what I’ve already said?
The MRM is A MALE LIBERATIONIST movement. Period.
Deny it if you will, but you just wrote exactly that, so why bother?
It’s ironic that your “man-ness†parrots the spearhead with the spearhead spreading radical male liberation while it bans God-fearing men from exercising their maximum moral autonomy. How manly is that?
Speaking of manly, what exactly does a real man look like to a radical liberationist?
And what do you have against men possessing God-ordained free will and the ability to exercise maximum moral autonomy?”
Well, that’s a good point, admittedly, but…
Uh…
Well, you see…
I’ve read your post five or six times, so I’m pretty sure I know what you’re saying, but…
Okay, consider this point…umm…
Parrots…spearheads…God-fearing parrots? Maximum autonomic…uh, Maximum…Overdrive? That old movie with Emilio Estevez in it? And did you say something about “loch…ness?”
Er, okay.
How ’bout this–can you maybe rephrase your whole fucking post? In like, you know, English? I think it can be summarized as “male liberation sinful, Jesus RAH RAH RAH” but I couldn’t swear by that interpretation.
You may very well be warning us that Bigfoot controls the international banking system using a magic mind-control helmet he acquired after mugging a space alien, but I’m going to assume there’s a “Jesus” element somewhere in your writings…
“They need a firm hand. The honest ones will admit it.”
Sanctioned husband violence = high marriage rates, low divorse
Unsanctioned husband violence = low marriage rates, high divorse
Its axiomatic, even the state is sanctioned to be violent to justify its cause.
Oh, man, what a great page. I especially liked it when he said she literally belongs in Hell. She has had this coming for a long time. How dare she tell us what to do when what happens to us will never happen to her. I suspect she is a Trojan, pretending to be sympathetic to men, while actually trying to shame them into self-destructive behavior for her own benefit.
A friend says, “Lets you and him fight.”
MarkyMark says he knows there are good women. But, they don’t do enough to distinguish themselves so we men can tell the difference. And, a 50% divorce rate with court rulings that destroys men’s lives makes the cost of a mistake too high to take the risk.
I reject out of hand anyone who says he/she/it get to do whatever they feel like, but I gotta’ do what I am supposed to do. Those days of my life are long past.
I think if you theological wannabe’s read the Bible a bit better, you will find that God lets societies who do not follow his rules about men and women and families and sexual conduct and abortions, be conquered. It is not my job to try to save those societies when they are violating God’s rules.
Ferd –
Great work. I think the only point I’ve ever disagreed with you on is the Boomer stuff, and likely because the subject is treated monolithically, and I’m not part of that monolith.
You hit this one so far out of the park there’s just strings and leather in a tattered line out there. This so-called “traditionalism” is sometimes so far beyond the pale it is as if these people have never ventured out of their homes. While they sat there all prim, proper, and condescending, their own “Church” burnt itself to the ground at the same speed as did the rest of society. They spend so much time adjusting their doilies in a self-righteous trance that they haven’t looked out of their deluded existence to see that the world they thought was there is little more than smoldering ash. There is nothing left for them to defend but an illusion.
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
By “firm hand” I did not mean physical chastisement, of course. My wife has always liked the occasional spanking, but that has been consensual.
Laura Wood:
“Are you in the habit of issuing commands to your wife? In a marriage, a wife is obligated to obey but a husband is obligated to love. And when he wants something of his wife, he does not command her. He politely asks her to do something with affection and respect.”
This is total nonsense. Feminist. Pope Pius XII, IIRC, wrote in about 1945 that husbands should exercise “firm command” and wives show “docile obedience”. I do sometimes “command” my wife. (She doesn’t always obey.) But I don’t mince words. And I am not always polite.
I would suggest that Laura has a peek at the New Testament. The passages about wives obeying “in everything” and showing her husband “respect” might be worth a look. A husband has to love his wife, but that does not mean he has to pander to her.
It is my job. I’m not allowed to just give up and wait for us to be conquered. If I go down, I go down fighting and spreading the Word.
David,
Sex is unitive, so it makes sense that having sex with your wife will deepen her submission and strengthen your union. After all, submission is the wife’s natural state. It makes sense that a defiant and disobedient woman would be miserable, as she’s behaving unnaturally. Women get all out of sorts, so you have to screw them back together occasionally.
What would we do without our husbands? If it weren’t for them, we’d be even sillier and grumpier than we presently are, and then everyone would suffer horribly with us. As it is, we’re already barely tolerable. Husbands are public servants, in that sense.
Morality is preached for immorality’s sake. Once I convince someone else to sacrifice for everyones good, the ultimate progression is to convince everyone to sacrifice for my good.
Putting one gender on a pedestal, only creates the eventual scenario where it is pushed off said edifice and that will be the true future cruelty they are working up against themselves today.
To Pat Hannagan:
They started it!
There is a very old and famous joke from the now defunct English humour magazine “Punch”:
ADVICE TO MEN ABOUT TO MARRY – DON’T
That was written in about 1900.
Marriage to a woman is really tough. They are all kind of nuts. All of them. At least some of the time. Handling a woman is hard work. ALL of the official advice you will get is crap. Nothing in books or magazines published in the last forty years is of any value. Most of what the Church says these days is also pablum. John Paul II had apparently never lived with a woman, even a mother, as was all too obvious.
Occasional scraps of the truth used to find their way into books and magazines, maybe fifty years ago. But most of that is now gone.
I have some sympathy for The Thinking Housewife. Maybe she is an exception to the general rule, but most women are very difficult indeed.
If they truly respect you, they can be great companions and helpmeets. But that is a big “if”.
MarkyMark says he knows there are good women.
Yes. I’ll go so far as to say that 25-33% are good in character. Of course, if you want them to be a 7 or higher in looks, that shrinks the number further..
Weight that against the legal risks, AND the other sacrifices a man has to make (have the option of working a lot less vs. a lot more, the greater social pressures a married man faces vs. a single one), and the equation begins to look rather unfavorable.
Good point Basil.
It was because the men who came of age during Vietnam realized that they would be fighting for nothing. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were real, tangible threats to America, while Vietnam was just some pissant ex-colony in the middle of nowhere.
WWI was a ridiculous war, far more ridiculous than Vietnam, yet anyone in the U.S. who wouldn’t participate was branded a coward or a traitor. Something changed in the culture that had nothing to do with whether any particular war was worth fighting.
I will remark that it is a piss poor traditionalist who would look on the takeover of Europe, the traditional homeland of Western Civilization, by the Nazis with such insouciance.
Laura Wood is partially right in that a society where everyone looks at things through a “What’s in it for me?” lense is degenerate. If that is your attitude you are indeed part of the problem and I really have no sympathy for you. On the other hand, her solution, to just marry someone, apparently even if the only women available are pretty much whores, seems pretty grotesque. A more telling argument against her position is that we simply should not be rewarding whorish behaviour among women with marriage and children.
As for Mark Richardson, he has made the very sensible and accurate point that the risk of divorce for certain demographics, such as the college educated, has been vastly overstated in certain portions of the manosphere. So, if you marry someone who is college educated plus do a little screening, you should be fine. There really isn’t any excuse for not doing your duty, marrying and having children.
Here’s the thing. We’re probably all in agreement that the traditional system “worked”–i.e., kept society running smoothly–because it provided tangible benefits to people. There was indeed a tit-for-tat exchange going on, for example, with men trading financial support and romance to women in exchange for sex and moral/emotional support. People did indeed get something out of sacrificing short-term gratification for longer-term benefits and the good of their children. But it’s not as though the only reason they did these things is that they engaged in some armchair philosophizing and said to themselves “I see, marriage is a tit-for-tat exchange; men get what we want in exchange for women getting what they want; ergo, I will get married.” They did it because it’s just what you did. And as much as the tit-for-tat exchange kept most people content most of the time, there were of course times when you didn’t get what you wanted: men whose wives unexpectedly became chronically very ill at a young age but who were bound by their vows not to seek sexual release elsewhere, people having to give up desirable jobs and living situations to move back home to take care of their aging parents, etc. And at those times, people did such things out of a sense of moral imperative. “Do it anyway” and “be a real man” were exactly the kind of exhortations people were subject to by traditional society, not “you’re getting something for this in exchange.”
So, for the system to “work,” yes, on balance people have to get something for themselves out of it, but they also have to actually believe that there are moral ideals underpinning traditional behaviors. It’s those moral imperatives that keep people going when the going gets tough, which is exactly when people most need to keep going if we want to have a comfortable, safe, prosperous, civilized society. So while Laura Wood and her commenters are rightly criticized for not realizing how little incentive there is for men today to become vested in the future, you guys are wrong to attack them for caring about this sense of moral imperative.
This is why the conservatives and traditionalists are doomed. They are offering men struggle without triumph, suffering without reward. They have nothing aside from appeals to “duty†and “tradition,†urging men to defend a culture that no longer exists, to protect a civilization that is corrupt and deserves to die.
The reward is belonging to a group that values and celebrates your existence and seeks to create a way of life that reflects that fact.
Is that really so hard to understand?
I suppose there are those types who love to say things like, “My own life is nothing; my race is everything!”, and thus contribute to the impression that be in favor or your race (if you’re white) means matching their zeal. That can certainly be a turn-off.
In reality there’s no inherent conflict between cherishing your individuality and attempting to achieve your ambitions as an individual within the context of a consciously race-based society. It doesn’t require a high-powered imagination to appreciate how much more smoothly things would run for you than in the present day madness, in which even if you’ve diligently arranged your affairs in order to have as little to do with, say, blacks as possible there’s still the risk of running into a bunch of uppity, hairtrigger niggers and having your day (month/year/life) ruined by them.
People only look down on the “what’s in it for me” attitude when they’re not on the receiving end of it.
No one’s gonna tell me that they’ve made sacrifices without knowing that something just as good was waiting in the wings.
I’m tried of people saying that a man HAS to do something, men don’t have to do anything.
If a man doesn’t want to get married or have kids, he’s no better or worse than a man who does.
“This is total nonsense. Feminist. Pope Pius XII, IIRC, wrote in about 1945 that husbands should exercise “firm command†and wives show “docile obedienceâ€. I do sometimes “command†my wife. (She doesn’t always obey.) But I don’t mince words. And I am not always polite.”
David,
LW’s response is very typical to what I have seen with the Christian feminists. They have to always bring up the husband’s duty to love almost as a way to detract from the woman’s misbehavior. What your comment above made me think of is whose to say that “firm command” is NOT love. I suspect you are firm and commanding because you do love. You want her to behave and want what is best for her. By not being polite, does not mean there is no leave either. I think when such statements are made about a husband’s duty to love, the definition of love is feminist tainted. His loving has to be of a variety that is agreeable to her feminist sensibilities. Commands don’t sounds very nice, so therefore that is not love.
LGR
I do love my wife of 25 years. She is the only woman I have ever loved. But she is not a saint, and she IS my wife. I want us both to reach Heaven. I often try to correct her behaviour, sometimes because I want her to make my life more agreeable, and sometimes because I want her to have a better chance of reaching Heaven. I think she would agree that I have made her a better woman (and she has probably made me a better man).
I am not squeamish about telling her what books and videos I would rather she not read and view. What we do in the bedroom is up to me, but I put limitations on our behaviour in line with morality. I think it is false modesty of husbands to say things like, “Oh, my wife is an adult. She can make up her own mind.”
She is a good woman, on the whole, and I have noticed of late how much she does check with me and get my permission for her purchases and movements. This is something she just does. I don’t demand it. But I think I set a tone which requires a certain level of good behaviour from her. And that helps.
I know I sound pompous. But I take our marriage and our roles seriously. We are also good friends and we have fun. But there is a time for “firm command” as well.
Is it wrong to point out that both your examples involve the male provider doing something for someone else?
I will remark that it is a piss poor traditionalist who would look on the takeover of Europe, the traditional homeland of Western Civilization, by the Nazis with such insouciance.
Hitler only ever wanted what was Germany’s prior to WWI. He made no claims to the West. And a Western traditionalist would much prefer a Nazi Russia than the slaughter of the Soviets.
60 million people died under Soviet repression.
A traditionalist would have preferred Britain and the USA to stay the hell out of what was none of their business.
Hannagan: How come I never heard that before?
Hitler only ever wanted what was Germany’s prior to WWI. He made no claims to the West. And a Western traditionalist would much prefer a Nazi Russia than the slaughter of the Soviets.
Bullshit.
http://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/pat-buchanans-revisionist-history/
Mav: Well, that’s not something the State Department tells dependents when the battle occurred over the wrong line on some map.
Bullshit Ah, ya got me there that’s for sure.
If only I’d consulted Roach before the documentary evidence presented by Buchanan and other historians.
Maybe you could send Buchanan Roach’s blog address and have him halt further publication and do a world wide call back.
More from Roach over at Taki’s:
http://takimag.com/article/britian_in_1939
http://takimag.com/article/the_churchill_controversy
More generally. Though really sympathetic to a lot of paleocon ideas, most paleocons are actually a bunch of crazy ass cranks. If through some act of God the paleocons actually did come to power, it isn’t likely we’d end up ruled by some wise old council composed of the likes of Jim Kalb, Steve Sailer, Peter Brimelow, Greg Cochran, and F. Roger Devlin, with maybe a couple lesser lights like Paul Gottfried and Chris Roach thrown in for good measure. Most likely we’d end up ruled by such paragons of sanity and reasonableness as Larry Auster, Pat Buchanan, Laura Wood, and Paul Craig Roberts etc. Our current political class is pretty crazy already, so I don’t actually think that things would be any worse than we are now, but I’m not sure they’d be much better either.
Hermes:
Nicely put.
The shaming has been going on for decades now – what on earth makes them think that MORE shaming will reverse the tidal wave they have created?
Good point.
It’s just going to make more people tune out if they amplify it.
Also, trying to shame men as a class at the same time you don’t say much or anything about how men got disempowered out of shaming women is lopsided and perverse.
Many of these “traditionalist” women -probably all the American ones with blogs, are often “reformed” sluts who think their newfound Catholicism/Islam/whatever cancels out the damage years of depravity did to their souls. I mean, what are they doing preening on the goddamned internet? That’s significantly less “traditional” than standing on a street corner. An actual traditionalist woman will be taking care of her family and working in her community, rather than blabbering on the internets that men shouldn’t tell each other how to talk to women. Yes, I have firsthand experience here. I say a lot of ‘em are moral sewers who are projecting. One of ‘em certainly is.
“Game” is teaching over civilized men how to talk to women. Any woman who is opposed to this doesn’t like men very much, and will probably be rightly cursed with effete sons.
The Pacific as a Japanese Lake and the Atlantic as a German one would have led inexorably into the invasion and enslavement of the US. Only hard core lunatics by October 1941 could deny the threat of both the US, given the rapidity and scope of the Axis victories (no WWI static fronts and trench warfare).
Come on. The Germans couldn’t get across the English Channel, and somehow they were going to cross the Atlantic? The Japanese couldn’t take Oahu, and somehow they were going to land in California? The Germans couldn’t conquer the USSR, nor the Japanese China, even though these powers were geographically close to the Axis, and yet somehow they were going to conquer a continent-sized industrial superpower, the USA, on the other side of thousands of miles of ocean? Get real. Axis Invasion USA was never going to happen. Such ideas existed at the time mainly because they were manufactured by Churchill’s propaganda arm in New York, British Security Coordination:
What was actually developing in late 1941 was not a Japanese threat to the US, but a US threat to Japan in the form of B-17s based in the Philippines. We were openly bragging in US News and the New York Times that these bombers would burn Japan’s cities to the ground. Meanwhile, in that would-be German lake, the Atlantic, US destroyers were busy attacking German submarines. We kicked the Axis dogs repeatedly, and then when they finally bit us, we said they were mad dogs and shot them.
Larry Auster a paleocon?! This is what I call a target-rich environment.
You live your life between your legs, Mav.
You two really are cowboys.
What’s your problem, Kazanski?
A traditionalist would have preferred Britain and the USA to stay the hell out of what was none of their business.
I’m not a philosemite (for the retards out there, that does not make me an anti-Semite as a consequence) but I think that American and British involvement would have been justified alone on the grounds of intervening to rescue the Jews from the gas chambers.
What type of society stands idly by whilst watching millions get killed, especially when they have the power to meaningfully intervene?
And a Western traditionalist would much prefer a Nazi Russia than the slaughter of the Soviets.
They’re the same fucking thing. Ribbentrop-Molotov pact? The Germans ran things better but the ideology behind them was mainly the same. Cult of leader, will of people, extermination of enemies, external bogeymen (Jews and Bourgeois respectively). One group defined itself by race, the other class; otherwise they were both the same poison.
@Hermes
you guys are wrong to attack them for caring about this sense of moral imperative.
Agreed, though I wish she would put in more effort emphasising a wife’s obligation to her husband.
What type of society stands idly by whilst watching millions get killed, especially when they have the power to meaningfully intervene?
Yes, exactly. You are talking about the 60 million Russians slaughtered under the Bolsheviks while the West looked the other way aren’t you?
American and British involvement would have been justified alone on the grounds of intervening to rescue the Jews from the gas chambers.
Oh, no. I was wrong. It was thaaaaat 6 million that gets you all weepy. Did you just say you’re not a philosemite? Fuck me, if what you said isn’t the very definition of Jew scat munching goy coprophagist then I don’t know what is.
Yes, exactly. You are talking about the 60 million Russians slaughtered under the Bolsheviks while the West looked the other way aren’t you?
How many did the Nazi’s save?
I’d like Roach to explain how the Poms go to war all over saving Poland, which they had no chance of ever doing, then subsequently get their arses kicked all around her empire, get bled dry to the last gold bar via Yank Lend Lease, lose her empire and win the war, resulting in handing over Poland to the Soviets, was ever in our interests let alone Poland’s?
The Katyn massacrewas what the Allies fought for. Thanks a million dickheads.
Oh but those gas chambers and the sainted Jews who never caused no one no harm. Surely that’s reason enough for us all to slaughter each other. Christ almighty how many more wars must we fight and die in, while our lands get invaded, to save your fucking Jews from mythical gas chambers?
How many did the Nazi’s save?
I don’t understand the question. Are you saying that the Nazis should have beaten the Soviets and beaten the Allies?
Please pay attention, twat. My remarks were explicitly directed toward conservatives. IF one believes in duty to family; if one values racial continuity, what matters is who’s having the most children, not who’s holing the most bar sluts. This is inarguable.
Second point: bad shit can happen. If you don’t get married, bad shit can happen (see Julian Assange). If you get married, bad shit can happen. It happens less often than some MRA/PUAs have psyched themselves into believing, but it happens. You’re going to die eventually anyway and none of this obviates your obligation to reproduce. Men in other ages faced larger risks than child support.
That’s the abstract principle. The concrete reality is I don’t believe the average man gains even selfishly in eschewing family formation. The promise that by remaining eternally a bachelor and learning “game” he can lay endless strings of hot bitches and enjoy enhanced quality of life I see as the male feminist equivalent of the feminist assurance that women would find greater fulfillment in pursuing careers than in rearing children. Among other things, I suspect most soi disant PUAs would be getting more sex if they were married. Regardless, you’re certainly not getting back at feminists or an oppressive anti-male government by not having children. That’s exactly what the haters of civilization do want.
Just to make sure it’s still clear: I’m speaking generally, and I’m not concerned with convincing those who don’t want to be convinced. I don’t give a fuck about “Ferdinand Bardamu”; I’m entirely content for him to die alone and childless still attempting to live out his fantasy lifestyle.
Quite frankly, it is impossible to properly assess the rise of the Nazis without understanding the Bolshevik revolution and Jewish involvement in it.
I recommend you read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn along with Roach. Until white people understand the continual way we get scammed into mutual annihilation we will remain on this downward slide. In that context, Gaming is what you do on the way down. It’s the logical endpoint of all our indoctrination.
I don’t understand the question
It appears that you don’t understand more than just the question.
If a Nazi Russia was better than than a Soviet Russia how come so many Russians fought against the Nazi’s? The Nazi’s were welcomed as liberators in places like the Ukraine and Belorussia and were able to rapidly gain local support. However German mistreatment was worse than Russian mistreatment and many of them turned back to the Russian side. Remember it was official Riech policy that the Slavs, with certain exceptions, were the untermensch. Himmler and his goonies fucked up big time. Everyone hated the Russians. It took epic German(Aryan) stupidity to make the natives hate the Germans more. Own Goal.
No one handed Poland to the Soviets. The Germans took it first and the Soviets simply took it next, and the British were not prepared to take it from the Soviets. The Poles saw it as the great betrayal by the West. The Poles were totally justified in their disgust of the Allies. Fuck , they were still fighting in the Baltics till the 50′s, waiting for the hoped for American invasion.(Notice they weren’t hoping on the Brits. They had learned by this stage)
The West actually had a go at trying to destroy the Commies in the 1920′s by helping the White army. They lost. Patton and LeMay wanted to smash the Sov’s at the WW2. They were overruled. The Western Democracies saw nothing in it for themselves to fight against the Soviets. If you think that I wouldn’t have supported a war against the Commies you’re wrong. I think that the West would have been perfectly justified in dropping the first nuke on them, especially in the 40′s when they had total atomic superiority. The great tragedy of the 20th Century is the when the West had the means to smash Communism it chickened out. It was a disgrace.
Should the West have fought against Stalin to save the Russians? Shit yeah.
The Fifth Horseman,
If IMF isn’t going to be straight on the issue at hand then you should feel miffed at carrying his balls in the wrong direction.
The issue at hand was a traditional Catholic persuading his peers NOT TO GET MARRIED. Not only was this triffling plea born of one male’s personal despair, but it IS being done in the name of Catholicism. TTH took reasonable offense and said that such a protocol was evil.
And in fact, it is evil to lead a male towards de facto homo-ism ESPECIALLY if one claims to be doing such as a Christian.
And if you think the “no marriage, no kids” rally cry from the MRM is rooted in living a chaste lifestyle then what can I say about your denial of the fundamentally radical liberationist essence of the MRM?
Quite frankly, it is impossible to properly assess the rise of the Nazis without understanding the Bolshevik revolution and Jewish involvement in it.
No shit Sherlock. The “brains” if you can call it, of the Communist Party was nearly entirely Jewish. The main apparatchiks who engineered the Ukrainian famine were Jewish. Part of the reason why Catholic Poles and Orthodox Russians were happy to denounce the denounce Jews to the Nazis, was because they were profoundly sympathetic to the communists and felt that they were treacherous to the respective national causes. Muggeridge’s Winter in Moscow was denounced as anti-Semitic because too many references were made to the Jewish nature of the communist government.
However, French Jewish kids had nothing to do with this. By and large, German Jewish men, women and children had nothing to do with this.(In fact quite a few German Jews who had distinguished themselves with honour on the battlefields of ww1 for Germany were gassed for their effort) Italian Jewish men, women and children had nothing to do with this. Yugoslavian Jews had nothing to do with this. Dutch Jews had nothing to do with this. YET THEY ALL ENDED UP IN THE OVENS.
Remember all that stuff about do unto others as you…. blah blah blah.If you can’t see the problem with torturing, burning, starving and medically experimenting on little kiddies, men and old ladies who’ve done nothing wrong, well fuck……..there’s no hope for you.
Snark,
Men aren’t born. Nor are they created by virtue of coming closer to death. What you fail to understand is that the radical liberalism of the MRM is attempting to make sure none of us can be real men. While your foolishness has you believe that traditionalists are telling you what to do, the reality is that as a radical liberal you are attempting to be “manly” without doing anything that would remotely suggest you were a man. I mean, if you say, “no marriage, no children,” with the implication of no good women, then what “manly” thing are you doing?
Why is it that white male liberals (the majority of the MRM) deny their liberalism? Why is it that white male liberals deny their anti-Supremacy? Why is it that white male liberals call man-hate “feminism” instead of devout dykism? Why is it that white male liberals in the MRM have a general animus towards woman coupled with a general embrace of homosexuality?
See Snarky… You and you’re ilk are trying to make sure us other guys can’t really be men and the mechanism by which this endeavor is being carried out is the MRM. Not only are the white male liberals in the MRM giving cover to the inherent man-hate of the devout dyke by constantly applying the “feminist” misnomer, but they also collude with radical homosexuals to label denegerate female liberalism as “female supremacy.” The Eve-hater has white male liberals in the MRM euphemizing the self-annihilating behavior of the modern liberal female as “supremacy.”
And Snarky doesn’t see how twisted he is?
What are you talking about slumlord? You’re the one that justified WWII on the pretext it was all about saving Private Ryan and the Jews.
Now you’re telling me that 60 million Russians dead shouldn’t have had any impact on the way the rest of Europe perceived the Soviet threat and Jewish involvement?
You contradict yourself my friend, and in doing so, display an ingrained hidden bias.
Maybe you should read Martin Gilbert’s “Churchill and the Jews”. Good old defender of the West and fighter of the Good War Winnie, knew all about Jewish involvement. He even asked the White Russian forces to tone down the reprisals against the Jews as it was upsetting Churchill’s constituency back in Manchester. One third of his electorate were Jewish btw but that wouldn’t have affected his views – no, no way at all.
Just like you hey slumlord.
Ferd,
A basic issue here is that Laura Wood isn’t really looking at the big picture.
Nothing changes unless someone complains about it.
But in spite of saying she’s in favor of marriage Wood goes on and on against the only people who complain to a meaningful degree about how the marriage laws are killing it.
It reminds me of when a fellow posted some interesting ideas to increase the white birthrate at Onestdv.
Some idiot responded by saying: “What’s wrong with you nerd idiots? Stop writing essays about improving the birthrate and start having children yourself.”
Yeah sure, because that of itself is going to save us.
A pure act of will on the part of the tiny fraction of individuals who care a lot about race and/or IQ.
Not that people’s individual lives don’t matter, but in the grand scheme of thing attacking the root causes of our problems is a necessary task.
The only people attacking the root causes of problems associated with Feminism are Men’s Right type people.
Laura Wood isn’t doing it.
Auster isn’t doing it.
William Bennet isn’t doing it.
I reread Jesse Powell’s comments and what he actually was advocating was not following Paul Elam’s call to summarily nullify at the jury box. I think that is quite reasonable. The right of the jury to nullify is one that must be used responsibly and should never be used until the trial is over, all of the facts presented and contested. It is grossly immoral for a jury to go into a trial saying “bitch is probably lying, so we’re going to nullify.”
That is a mentality akin to how white juries used to wink and nod at people who victimized blacks.
(And for the record, here is a post of mine which proves why Powell’s claims about how rape works today and how many false rape accusations are made cannot be substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt)
Interesting post.
I would offer more, but the kiddos are waking up and I don’t want to spend any more time than I do “preening on the Internet”, lol.
One suggestion, Ferd: don’t make any references to WW2 in any post unless the subject is specifically WW2. Otherwise the wannabe historians and military buffs, 99% of whom have a huge axe to grind, will inevitably show up and try to completely derail the discussion.
The funny thing to me is that when someone like Laura Wood sees someone like me with an attractive girl, she probably thinks “See? The system works. He’s an amicable good natured provider type and that’s why he has a girlfriend and they are probably going to get married soon”.
She has no idea that what got me the girlfriend was completely switching off the amicability circuit and turning on the “treat her like shit” circuit.
Though you kept going on various tangents there(like a chick haha), it was a very interesting and well thought out post.I agree with most of you assertions except! :FDRs stewardship preventing a communist revolution….are you serious….ok the only way I can envision it prevented a communist revolution is because it took America even closer to communism !Actually had “Ludwig Von Mises crowd” got their way, unemployment would certainly not have climbed beyond 10%!I dont seem to recollect any Greek style rioting after the Great Crash which would suggest a fondness for a violent egalitarian movement!
I find it odd that these days people who have most to lose are the one who are least likely to fight for it.Be they politicians, corporate titans or old money gentry.In ancient Rome ,Greece , only landowners could be citizens and only they could serve in the military as they had a stake in the fight.Similarly with the feudal lords of medieval Europe and Japan. Fighting for patriotism is a modern and morally suspect concept which reeks of propaganda which the corrupt are forced to use because as you point, there is no tangible threat or benefit to the average Joe sixpack doing the killin and dying!
Arguably the very first patriotic war could be the American Civil War where the Northern idealist Patriots were fighting the more pragmatic minded Southerners who wanted to protect their economy(however oppressive to havenots as it was), their homes and land(Sherman and Grant thoroughly devastated the Southern landscape) and their way of life(aristocrats were indeed proportionally represented in the Confederate army).This is not a matter of whether those fighting with more practical concerns are more moral people(the Confederates dreamt of a slave empire in South America) meanwhile the Fundamental abolitionists engaged in a type of brutality against the South which combined modern weapons with medieval styles of engagement coupled with an utter hatred for who were mostly their ethnic kin.
Regarding MRA:there are a type of traditionalists and conservatives who are attached to the status quo even if the latter is against their interests.I am reminded of the Russian Orthodox Church which refused to fight against communism(the fight was takent up by the Catholic church in Poland and Germany and Protestant denominations in America) as they saw it as Gods will(que sera sera).”Struggle without triumph”,”suffering without reward” seems like Christian martyrdom.But its not even that ,most of this suffering is in silence.Say you want about Christian martyrs ,they suffered in style.Being eaten while bearing a stoic demeanor by lions in front of thousands in a Roman Colosseum was some bitchin PR for the the fledgling Christian religion!
in other words “parents just don’t understand”
The same applies to the Vietnam War btw. There are thousands of forum fighters out there waiting for any opportunity to share their pet theories about it.
@Alte
I do not discourage men from marrying, nor do I encourage it. Each man needs to decide for himself if he can carry the burden and responsibilities of husbandry and fatherhood, or if he is called to something else. Perhaps just for a time, perhaps for a lifetime. I feel I am obligated to tell them the truth of their situation and present them with aid and advice that can truly help them. I will not lie to them, or paper over the sad state of affairs. They need to know what they are getting into, so that they can walk in fully prepared or find a better use for their efforts. Men, after all, are people too.
Beautifully put!
As for Mark Richardson, he has made the very sensible and accurate point that the risk of divorce for certain demographics, such as the college educated, has been vastly overstated in certain portions of the manosphere. So, if you marry someone who is college educated plus do a little screening, you should be fine. There really isn’t any excuse for not doing your duty, marrying and having children.
I have a lot of respect for Mark, and he’s making a valid point about divorce rates in the various demographics. But he’s wrong about two things:
1) It is not our duty to marry. Some people are called to marry, and some are not. Some people are fit to marry, and some are not.
2) Divorce isn’t the only danger. There is also the danger that you will not be able to fulfill your role as husband or that she will break vows (with adultery, frigidity, or disobedience). It is hard for a man to discern such things in advance, as women are very good actresses. If nothing else, such problems mean that you have essentially wasted a good portion of your life that you could have spent more constructively somehow else.
This is why kinism/WN and Catholicism make poor bedfellows. The latter is focused on the fate of the individual and society at large, the former is a racial breeding program that reduces men to ATM machines and sperm banks. If your focus is “more white babies”, then you cannot make room for concern for each person. Breed, breed, breed, at all costs. That is obvious in her comments to Max, which can be reduced to: Your life may totally suck, but at least you produced some offspring for the cause. Now stop whining about injustice.
Where is the humanity in that?
Hermes,
those patriarchal moral imperatives were legally enforced in bygone eras even if the going got tough. Spouses were expected to be faithful and fulfill their roles which were respected and celebrated. Laura Wood and her commenters are imploring men to obey rules that are no longer enforced and are in fact ridiculed and penalized. This is simply a dickish move on their part and for that they deserve to be slammed.
“Speaking of manly, what exactly does a real man look like to a radical liberationist?”
Great question- what is the ideal man in the eyes of an MRA or MRS?
P.S- What’s with the video at the end? It sucked.
“Second point: bad shit can happen. If you don’t get married, bad shit can happen (see Julian Assange).”
n/a,
the laws in the US are such that you can easily be falsely accused of rape by your wife as well. Your female coworkers can accuse you of sexual harassment whether you’re married or not. In the realm of male-female relations there isn’t much that cannot happen to you if you’re married but can happen if you are.
“Great question- what is the ideal man in the eyes of an MRA or MRS?”
Someone who avoids getting victimized and exploited by women in any way, I guess.
Laura Wood and her commenters are imploring men to obey rules that are no longer enforced and are in fact ridiculed and penalized.
But it is even worse than that. They are imploring men to obey rules without insisting that women obey equal but different rules. The husband’s role is still enforced by law, even for men who are not married! The wife’s role is a purely optional one, that can be discarded whenever it grows inconvenient. I think most men wouldn’t mind carrying the legal burden, if their wives reciprocated by relinquishing their legal freedoms.
In other words, I don’t think men would evade “manning up” if their women were required to “woman up” in return. Men are not generally afraid of sacrifice, they reject pointless sacrifice. We need reform, not just at a personal level, but at a societal and legal level, as well. Traditional marriage requires the support of traditional law. Repeal: VAWA and all domestic violence legislation, female suffrage, reform rape laws, alimony, child support for the unmarried, prohibit women from the military, family court, remove all affirmative action for women, etc.
Laura’s on board with some of this, but some of it she refuses to support out of a sense of self-preservation. But if she wants men to sacrifice for women, then women must be more willing to sacrifice for men. If nothing else, it is a show of good faith. Either Christian Western men are worthy of our trust and obedience, or they aren’t. But if they aren’t, then why are we marrying them in the first place? Are they such monsters that we live in fear of them and demand ever-greater protections? That is schizophrenic, because it is those same men who protect us in the first place!
It is the sense of unfairness and imbalance which grates and causes so much misery and righteous anger. Not only for the men, but for the children, as well.
I think that American and British involvement would have been justified alone on the grounds of intervening to rescue the Jews from the gas chambers.
What type of society stands idly by whilst watching millions get killed, especially when they have the power to meaningfully intervene?
That would be the exact same society that stood by, as Pat said, as the Bolsheviks massacred millions of Russians and Ukrainians and other Soviet nationalities. That would be the exact same society that said this, much to the recent fury of the neocons:
Thanks Alte. Your comments really get to the heart of the issue.
“Great question- what is the ideal man in the eyes of an MRA or MRS?”
Why would there need to be an ideal?
@Alte
But it is even worse than that. They are imploring men to obey rules without insisting that women obey equal but different rules.
I would say it is still even worse. They aren’t shaming men into to keeping their promises while not asking women to do so. They are shaming men into making promises while not asking women to keep theirs.
The conflation of failing to make a promise with failing to keep one has become so common we don’t even notice it. No one is obligated to make a promise. It must be voluntary. Once made however, the maker has a moral obligation to keep it. They have turned this entirely upside down.
That would be the exact same society that stood by, as Pat said, as the Bolsheviks massacred millions of Russians and Ukrainians and other Soviet nationalities. That would be the exact same society that said this, much to the recent fury of the neocons:
And that society was fucked. I don’t get what you two are on about. I said that I felt that second world war would have been justified on saving the Jews alone. I also said that a war would be justified in rescuing the Russians against the Communist . What’s your problem? I have a problem with a system that tortures, gasses, and kills innocent people. Both regimes did it and both deserved to be destroyed.
The only people attacking the root causes of problems associated with Feminism are Men’s Right type people.
Not even them. MRA’s are typically a species of liberal, whether of the right or left wing variety and thus accept the same premises as the feminists. They typically fail because feminism is the inevitable result of those very same premises.
The man who was…
You speak truth.
The question that is not being answered by the leadership of the MRM is:
What is the man who IS?
This question will not be answered because most in the MRM are joining a movement out of a perception of PERSONAL weakness in order to gain a false strength in an ill-defined collective.
Who is actually a leader of the MRM that isn’t also a liberal?
Can anyone name one?
One of the manners in which a radical autonomist manifests is as the “acceptable ignoramus.” This individual can read short, simple sentences – obviously composed in his native English – written using easily defineable words and still feign an “acceptable ignorance” that is collectively tolerated; thereby, reinforcing one’s radical autonomy.
{watch}
Acceptable Ignoramus, what is Supremacy?
a. Equality
b. Degeneracy
c. Supremacy
d. All the above
MRA’s are typically a species of liberal, whether of the right or left wing variety and thus accept the same premises as the feminists.
MRAs aren’t exactly politically homogenous. Most will tend to be right-wing ‘liberals’ because they are de facto right-wing as anti-feminists and come from a liberal culture.
I’d say that most MRAs are probably more ‘traditionalist’ in terms of supporting gender specialization and traditional roles rather than trying to outdo the feminists in the egalitarian arena. The foundational element of feminism, that of tabula rasa egalitarianism is probably not shared by very many MRAs.
There are probably a few premises that are accepted between feminism and MRAs that I can’t think of at the moment, but not many. That isn’t saying much though. Right-wingers and left-wingers usually share the premise that ability is a correlated with success. The former thinks it should be that way and the latter does not; which is a very radical divergence of philosophy.
And that society was fucked. I don’t get what you two are on about. I said that I felt that second world war would have been justified on saving the Jews alone. I also said that a war would be justified in rescuing the Russians against the Communist . What’s your problem? I have a problem with a system that tortures, gasses, and kills innocent people. Both regimes did it and both deserved to be destroyed.
I thought the point was abundantly clear. If two regimes that torture, enslave and kill innocent people (their own and those in other countries) are at war, there is no moral imperative to take the side of one regime against the other. In fighting the Nazis, we not merely killed hundreds of thousands of German civilians, but we also enabled the Soviets to continue torturing and killing millions of people, and to enslave half of Europe for 45 years.
The choice to destroy both evil regimes was not on the table in 1941. We picked a side, but we don’t get to preen about how “justified” we were because we saved some Jews, because in doing so we condemned a lot of other people to torture, slavery and death.
@Alte:
1) It is not our duty to marry. Some people are called to marry, and some are not. Some people are fit to marry, and some are not.
2) Divorce isn’t the only danger. There is also the danger that you will not be able to fulfill your role as husband or that she will break vows (with adultery, frigidity, or disobedience). It is hard for a man to discern such things in advance, as women are very good actresses. If nothing else, such problems mean that you have essentially wasted a good portion of your life that you could have spent more constructively somehow else.
This is why kinism/WN and Catholicism make poor bedfellows. The latter is focused on the fate of the individual and society at large, the former is a racial breeding program that reduces men to ATM machines and sperm banks. If your focus is “more white babiesâ€, then you cannot make room for concern for each person. Breed, breed, breed, at all costs. That is obvious in her comments to Max, which can be reduced to: Your life may totally suck, but at least you produced some offspring for the cause. Now stop whining about injustice.
Where is the humanity in that?
Spot on! I’m neither a kinist nor a Catholic, but as a Protestant Christian of mixed-race who nevertheless has concern for my civilization, and my country, I very strongly agree with this. There are others out there pushing the same sort of thing as the Laura Woods of the world: for example, the “quiverfull” movement within some Protestant circles, esp. Reformed, like Douglas Phillips and Douglas Wilson; they push the idea that Christians should have as many kids as possible, in order to eventually recapture the culture, and take control of society. So, men are merely breeders and women merely wombs, to be used to raise children for the cause. As for Douglas Wilson, he combines this sort of thinking with typical chivalrous misandry:
“When a couple comes for marriage counseling, my operating assumption is always that the man is completely responsible for the all the problems. Some may be inclined to react to this, but it is important to note that responsibility is not the same thing as guilt. If a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, of course she bears the guilt of her adultery. But at the same time, he is responsible for it.
… Husbands are responsible for their wives. They are the head of their wives as Christ is the head of the church. Taking a covenant oath to become a husband involves assuming responsibility for that home. This means that men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home.”
No thanks! I recognize no duty to breed for the sake of the Church or Western civilization, nor to marry a woman who will mistreat me, and just suck it up. To hell with that!
Because all of these blogs spend half their time languishing over the ideal woman, I just figured you would have the slightest bit of acumen to consider the flip side of the coin (you know, your side).
The choice to destroy both evil regimes was not on the table in 1941. We picked a side, but we don’t get to preen about how “justified†we were because we saved some Jews, because in doing so we condemned a lot of other people to torture, slavery and death
Who’s preening?
So it was a “choice” in choosing to fight against the Germans, was it?
Help a brother out here.
F. B. is probably correct. As the white nationalist Eric Thomson has said, ‘without love there is no loss.’ Obviously our own people care nothing for their ethnicity, culture, or historical traditions. The English, in particular, don’t care for each other very much. That being the case, why should any of us care?
I’m not even going to touch that gibbering schizophrenic named Josh F. (who also goes by the name “thordaddyâ€) and his slobberings about “devout dykism†and “anti-Supremacy.â€
Damn Fur, a rabid lil’ atheist hasn’t got more than this? Who calls degenerate female behavior “female supremacy,” but the devout dyke? And what is an atheist if not anti-Supremacy? It’s why you think degeneracy = supremacy.
Imagine that you wrote this just moments before:
What conservatives, traditionalists, white nationalists and their ilk don’t understand is the necessity of offering something of tangible value to the people they need to make their movements successful. Most of the time, their response is to double-down on insults and shaming, finger-wagging anyone who doesn’t want to hop on their train ride to oblivion.
You’re like the a**hole calling the butthole, black.
But it gets worse for you completely lie about a discussion in which you did not partake, but nonetheless quoted substantially in order to make yourself look like a fool.
TTH NEVER demanded men get married and have kids (nor did I and I challenge you to me). She NEVER demanded that the poster endure the suffering without recourse. In fact, she RIGHTLY chastised a self-asserted traditional Catholic of the evil of telling other males to choose de facto homo-ism BECAUSE he has personally dysfunctional marriage.
You’re a fool, Fur. And a coward, too. You have all these boy-liberals whipped up in a false frenzy feasting their fangs on a conservative woman. You’re Eve-hate couldn’t be more evident.
That should be “quote me.”
Quote ONE DEMAND I’ve made of men to marry and have kids? Strawman. Some fools
want to self-annihilate. I only care about those who preach it and by the success of their mechanism become the “default elite.” You’re fighting with girls, but you’re pushing boys towards de facto homo-ism. Useful idiot or more ambitious?
Even your link is disengenuous…
“cautions…”
If that’s all it were then there would be no discussion.
The reality is that the poster ASSERTED the desirability of de facto homo-ism (no marriage, no kids because no good women) and FUR twisted, perverted and mangled this
into TTH asserting that men must get married and have kids without any thought whatsoever. And they should suffer without complaint when things inevitably go wrong. Strawman.
What will the anti-Supremacist do?
He will either practice radical autonomy in the form of absolute silence, a thread-scrubbing, banishment, a full frontal assault or a combination of all the above.
What would a Supremacist do?
Acknowledge his Strawman and the false and deceptive frenzy he created.
Goodness, four angsty posts in a row. At least we now know that real manliness consists in writing incomprehensible, irate comments on blogs that offend you.
Snark,
The reason things are so incomprehensible to you is that you exist in a state of radical autonomy. As a bona liberal, you are unable to simply deal with reality as it is.
{watch}
What is Supremacy? Give us your thoughts in your own words.
You almost certainly won’t be able to do it. Let’s see?
Snark, you hear that? If you can’t read Thordaddy’s (most likely on acid) mind, you aren’t a “real man” (TM).
“pro-male?”
“pshawww!!!”
What part of “in your own words” equates to reading thordaddy’s mind, nitwit?
There is nothing more anti-man (anti-male) than letting a gang of baboons sling doo doo while a father of four is left to twiddle his thumbs on the sidelines unable to face his haters because manginas are at the top of SPEARHEAD.
Do it boy-liberal. Tell us, what is Supremacy?
Give us your thoughts IN YOUR OWN WORDS?
While you’re at it, please define any of the terms you don’t understand?
Do this exercise using your own knowledge only.
Define radical autonomy…
Define devout dyke…
Define self-annihilation…
Define de facto homo-ism…
All in your own words???
Let’s see how radically autonomous you are?
Thordaddy, stop trying to be another Mencius Moldbug. One is more than enough. Few of us have the time to learn this idiosyncratic dialect you’ve concocted. Either explain your thoughts in plain English, or get lost.
“Snark, you hear that? If you can’t read Thordaddy’s (most likely on acid) mind, you aren’t a “real man†(TM).”
Oh no! I’d better quickly get on with the homework assignment he has given me, of defining phrases that he just made up and nobody else uses.
He even asked me to “please define any of the terms you don’t understand”
How could anybody define that which they do not comprehend? Moron.
Hermes,
Why are you so scared to admit that you’re part of a male liberationist movement led by white male liberals that are seeking to ill-define both Man and Woman?
Why do fellas like you see degenerate female behavior and call it “female supremacy?”
What exactly is the nature of the relationship that you are seeking with other males to
fill the void left by the paucity of good women?
If you tell young males absolutely “no marriage and no kids because there are no good women,” then how is this not preaching de facto homo-ism?
What is the nature of the devout dyke if not man-hate?
Why do you call man-hate “feminism?”
Is there an inherent man-hate to femininity?
Is it masculine to Eve-hate?
Or, is Eve-hate the radical homosexual’s nature?
If the majority of the liberal leadership in the MRM incorrectly frames the issue at hand then how exactly can they lead anyone?
Who’s preening?
You are. “No matter what else we did wrong morally and practically, it was all justified because we saved some Jews.” Yaaay! Too bad it was never about saving the Jews.
So it was a “choice†in choosing to fight against the Germans, was it?
Yes, it was. And the choice was not made in December 1941, but long before that — maybe even as early as 1933 but definitely by 1938.
Can all the insane idiots get off this blog? Fucking CHRIST. You faggots know who you are.
Hey, where’s my punk? Is he still here? Thordinky, you’re late for our little appointment. Get your
French maid outfit on, don’t forget the high heels either you little punk. Stop bothering the
men you little pouffe, and start servicing your Master.
There’s a good little boy. And don’t go hiding behind your fake mommy’s dress, either. Mrs.
Woods needs a good spanking, but that is up to her husband for now. You stay out of there.
Mr. Bardamu,
I’m Max, the commenter on The Thinking Housewife that you quote mentioned Mrs. Wood chastising. I’d like to clear a few things up with regards to Catholic teaching. First, Laura is mostly right in her claim that I have to worry about my obligations to my wife and children apart from her obligations to me. I made those vows, and they are absolute. If my duties as a husband were conditional to her duties as a wife, and vise versa, if either of us ever slipped up, both would be absolved of all duty. Though I think Laura is a little soft on other things, she’s right here.
I am duty-bound to serve my wife and as a husband. She is duty-bound to serve me as a wife. Those two statements are true independent of each other. It’s not a simple contract where if one party fails to live up to their side of the bargain, it’s null and void. Though I have a right to feel aggrieved, and rectify the situation by any licit means possible, I cannot lose site of my obligations, which from my point of view must trump hers.
What binds me? Sacramental marriage. Ultimately, it is answerable only to God. I took my solemn vows before God, and He will judge me by how I fulfilled them. When I sit before the almighty facing my judgment, how well my wife fulfilled her vows will be irrelevant as to whether my final resting place will be heaven or hell.
Also, the Church teaches much on the redemptive power of suffering. Though I’m not spiritually advanced to seek spiritual mortification, it has sought me. She is right to tell me to embrace it.
Also, if you read further in the comments, she and I came to a bit of an understanding of sorts. She originally did not know that I counseled other men not just to remain unmarried, but also to remain celibate. This is because I am Catholic, and believe the Church’s teachings regarding marriage and sexuality. I don’t have a problem with marriage, per se, but I see marrying today as foolish in our culture.
Where Laura and I disagree strongly is her optimism; she seems to think it’s not hard to find a decent wife.
kinist leader peter kershaw is ruled by his wife cynthia ann kershaw
“Does Society Need Men’s Rights?”
Who gives a damn what society needs? MEN need men’s rights and that’s all this little piggy needs to know.
{ 9 trackbacks }