Looking in the Mirror

This posts will be a collection of different thoughts and ideas that have been bouncing around in my head for a while. Most are the product of some self-reflection, hence the title.  I should warn folks that this post is more stream of consciousness than anything else. Apologies for any typos.

Hostile Environment

During the many months that I have been blogging I’ve corresponded with a number of people via e-mail. Some men, some women. Some comment on this blog and others, and some don’t. A fairly constant refrain that I have heard from a number of women who comment here or have reached me via e-mail is that the manosphere is a cruel, harsh place. Often times in that exact language. They complain that they don’t feel welcome here, or that they feel targeted , or that they feel depressed reading things here.

Women who find their way here need to understand that the manosphere is a male space. Yes, women are welcome, but this part of the web was created by men, for men. Men talk in blunt terms. We don’t generally sugarcoat things. We talk in broad abstractions. If we feel like saying something, we say it, without worrying about hurting someone’s feelings. Most importantly, we say what we think is true, and if that hurts someone, well, too bad. The manosphere is a harsh place. As a general rule punches aren’t pulled around here. We are men. This is the way we are. And we are not going to change it to make women feel better. Women have already corrupted nearly all of the male spaces out there in the West, we have no intention of letting them do the same here.

[DG: To understand this idea of male spaces and language better, I suggest the following two posts by Deep Strength:

http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-socialization-of-men-and-women/

http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/the-selfish-and-unselfish-socialization-of-men/ ]

If a woman finds that this place is too cruel or heartless or unsympathetic for her, then she should leave. That’s the best advice that I can give. Now, that is a problem because there really isn’t a place that helps women out like this part of the web can. Frankly, a female oriented Red Pill site is overdue. TempestTcup helps with the Red Pill Woman Subreddit, and that is close, but its not quite the same thing. There is especially a dearth of sites for Christian women looking for real, honest Titus 2 type advice.  April over at Peaceful Single Girl is the closest approximate. But as much as I like the Peaceful Wife, she doesn’t quite have that perspective. Yet however much that might be needed, that manosphere is not here for that. If you as a woman cannot stomach it, then I’m sorry but that’s life.

This is a male space, and it is going to stay a male space. And that means it will be uncomfortable for most women for the foreseeable future.

A Lack of Love?

A similar accusation that has also been thrown around, often accompanying the argument about the manosphere in general, is that the Christian manosphere is not a loving place. This accusation has some merit in my view. A number of of commenters, and some bloggers, who identify as Christians have engaged in what I think is best described as cruelty. Some revel in unnecessary suffering, or look forward to it or call for it. This is not the kind of attitude that Christian’s should adopt:

Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.

(1 John 4:7-8)

We should pity those who have fallen off the path, not despise them. Nor should we gloat at their suffering. It doesn’t matter if they curse us, wish us ill, or otherwise harm us. We are not to be cruel, even towards our enemies:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:43-48)

This extends even to feminists and their ilk. Yes, this is a hard calling. But its not like we weren’t warned or anything by Jesus.

Name Calling

On a related note certain words with negative connotations are another source of complaints about the manosphere. Some of these charges are well founded, and some are not. What matters are the words used and the context in which they are used.

Lets take Sunshine Mary’s post titled “Delusional teen-aged whores and useless kitchen gadgetry.”  That post generated some complaints about the language used. My response is this: there is nothing objectively wrong with the title of that post. Or even the commentary within the post. The word delusional is a descriptive word applied to the young woman who is the subject of the post. If it sounds harsh, that is only because the state of being delusional is one that a sane person wouldn’t want to be described as. She was of course a teenager, so that part is accurate. And lets face it, pornography and prostitution are so similar as to be essentially interchangeable. What is wrong with calling her a whore? That is exactly what that woman was. There is nothing wrong, or even unloving, about pointing out the truth like that. A whore is a prostitute is a hooker. All are words describing the same thing. If you object to one over the other, then why? Because it sounds more harsh? That is only because you, the reader, treat it differently. The concept is still the same.

The key, in my view, is how we use words. If we use words to describe, then that is acceptable. But if we use words to demean, then we are in potentially troublesome territory. I will use the word harlot to create an example. If I were to tell a woman “You are a harlot” then I am being descriptive- I am describing her as a harlot. On the other hand, if I were to tell a woman “You are nothing but a harlot”, then I am being demeaning, and not merely descriptive- I am assigning a place, a value to her as a human being. There is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, so long as that is what we are actually doing.

Judgment

I was going to talk about this subject, but then Sunshine Mary beat me to the punch. I agree with most of what she has to say, so I will leave her response to substitute for my thoughts on the subject for the time being. There are, however, several good comments worth singling out.

One comment is by superslaviswife. Another comment is by Denise. FuzzieWuzzie also had a good comment.

This passage from 1 Corinthians is important to keep in mind here:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

(1 Cor 5: 9-13)

As I pointed out earlier, there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. But judgment we should reserve for those who call themselves Christians but don’t act like it. That means Churchians and Christo-Feminists, to name a few. In fact, the language Paul uses makes it nearly a duty for us to do so, so long as we aren’t hypocrites about it.

What a Shame

There seems to be some real confusion about what is known as “slut shaming”, so I will try and clear that up a little. Slut shaming is not about punishing women who engage in sexual immorality. Yes, there is social ostracism for such women unless and until they repent. But that is not the goal or purpose. Instead, slut shaming is really about creating a social environment which discourages women from engaging in sexual immorality. The truth is, shaming those women who fall astray isn’t really the way to bring them back. In his ministry Jesus would call out sinners (for example the Samaritan woman at the well), but not shame them. The singular exception was those who publically pretended to be virtuous but were not (the Sadducees and the Pharisees). So shaming is appropriate for those who make their sins public, but not so much for private sins, or those who don’t flaunt them, anyways.

I think that people get mixed up because they look at slut shaming and think of it from the individual perspective of how we should act. This isn’t right. Slut shaming is a community measure, done for the good of the community. It is about preserving social order. St. Paul’s words in the first letter to Timothy shed some light here:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sounddoctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

(1 Tim 1:8-11)

Slut shaming isn’t direct towards the just but the disobedient. It is designed to keep them in line, because women who engage in social immorality harm not merely themselves but the whole community (the spread of STDs is but one example). It isn’t about making women act morally, but convincing them not to act immorally. Since women are highly social creatures, this is best done through social pressures. For men, and their behaviors destructive to the community, more direct methods are required.

Excuses, Excuses

Something that bothers a lot is when Christians make excuses for sinners. The most common refrain is that “so and so had a hard life, how can you judge them for what they did?” Whatever the specific language used, however, it all comes down to the same thing: finding a way to excuse someone for their sins. My response to those who engage in this is to point out that Jesus never excused sinners from their sin. In fact, only once does he really make any mention of how someone’s life history might affect how they will be judged on the Day of the Lord:

43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

Those who were not raised right, those who were ignorant of God’s laws will be shown leniency only so far as punishment is concerned. But they still sinned, no matter their life story, and so will still be held to account. Jesus didn’t care for excuses. What he cared about was that sinners repented of their sins. That is what matters to Him.

Advertisements

37 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Sin, Women

37 responses to “Looking in the Mirror

  1. Good post Donal, thank you.

    I have heard it said by Priests that we must have a spirit of “discernment”, and not a judgmental one, and that in the verse telling us to judge, it comes from the word, “discernment”.
    I think we are supposed to discern others, but meekly and humbly go to them and tell them, in hope that they can repent, out of love for their souls.
    One of the biggest difficulties for us as Christians is to not get caught up in pride when we discern, or become like a pharisee.

    Being able to discern wisely is very much different from having a haughty judgmental spirit in my opinion. There are many great Orthodox articles about this, you may find of interest. http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/judging.aspx “Blessed Theophylact writes: “He forbids condemning others, but not reproving others. A reproof is for another’s benefit, but condemnation expresses only derision and scorn.”

    As for excusing sins, we should not make excuses. However, I think we should consider individual approach for each person, we try to find the way that will best bring them to repentance, and to the Lord. So , for example, if a person is deeply hurt, and has had a bad life, we shouldn’t make excuses, but we should consider the softer approach may be recieved more well as they will possibly become defensive if harshly rebuked. And we lose our chance to connect with this person and for them to understand need for repentance.

    [DG: This is a superb comment.]

  2. These are all helpful thoughts, Donal. Especially this:

    Slut shaming is not about punishing women who engage in sexual immorality. Yes, there is social ostracism for such women unless and until they repent. But that is not the goal or purpose. Instead, slut shaming is really about creating a social environment which discourages women from engaging in sexual immorality. The truth is, shaming those women who fall astray isn’t really the way to bring them back. In his ministry Jesus would call out sinners (for example the Samaritan woman at the well), but not shame them. The singular exception was those who publically pretended to be virtuous but were not (the Sadducees and the Pharisees). So shaming is appropriate for those who make their sins public, but not so much for private sins, or those who don’t flaunt them, anyways.

    I think that people get mixed up because they look at slut shaming and think of it from the individual perspective of how we should act. This isn’t right. Slut shaming is a community measure, done for the good of the community. It is about preserving social order.

    The only really appropriate use of the blogosphere for slut-shaming is for the sins that are publicly flaunted and to use them as examples for teaching broad concepts to the female herd at large, sort of like trying to highlight and enforce guardrails.

    One thing I want to add about judgment, which I mentioned on my thread: we Christians need only judge one another, spiritually, but the thing is, stigma/shaming/judging are all part of human society independent of Christianity, and furthermore they are necessary for maintaining order and social cohesion. So it is not inappropriate for Christians living in a non-Christian culture, as we do, to be concerned about maintaining orderly places to live – God is not a God of chaos but rather order.

    The fact is, much of the non-Christian red pill/reactionary sphere are disgusted by Christians because they see us as the source of the problem because of our nonjudgmentalism. They are much quicker to say, “X is wrong and people who do X are causing problems. Therefore we need to stigmatize X behavior and shame people who engage in X.” They see Christians as being happy-clappy enablers. And they’re often right.

    Still, I’m glad this conversation is happening. It’s a good warning to me to check myself; contemplating and writing about these subjects can be soul-crushing after a while and I do see a tendency in myself sometimes to flirt with nihilism and to give in to sinful, rather that righteous, anger. And I don’t know about others, but for me it’s hard to know when I’m out of line, too, because the simple act of calling a spade a spade generates endless shrieks of “Who are you to judge?!” and after a while I just tune it out and don’t even listen to it.

    It might be helpful if some of us committed to check each other by email or something. At this point, I would have to say that only men should levy this correction, both on each other and on women. Women (including me) have lost all credibility when it comes to correcting others for being inappropriately judgmental and should probably just close our mouths.

  3. Great comment Sunshine Mary.

    I would also like to add, being discerning is even more important when it comes to us protecting the Church. We have a duty for this, and though we might be aware of the world problems, we know that it was said in the Bible that “narrow is the way, and few will find it”. So mostly we need to take care of the Church that it does not become worldly, and this absolutely requires discernment.

    [DG: Yes, this is essential. And it is what we have been failing at for decades now.]

  4. And I understand that people get very upset about the current culture, it is completely natural and normal reaction. And it seems much of Christian manosphere is dedicated to focusing on this. I see reason for this, but I also really wish that we could also say, “Yes, this person sinned, this person is lost, let us try everything we can to help them to come to the Lord, and offer them also love and compassion”. We have to do it from a spirit of compassion, because they are our brothers and sisters, and we must feel deeply saddened for souls astray. Acknowledging sin is one thing, trying to love them and help them out of it should naturally be the next step. I know it is a lot more difficult than it sounds, when we see somebody as the enemy. But we have been instructed to love our enemy, and pray for them. I know a lot of people will disagree with me for these views, and in no way do I mean to be condescending, as I also feel this same mindset!

  5. The only manosphere blogs I follow are Christian and I think those ones have some good advice that Christian women can glean from. I don’t really find the Christian manosphere to be mean at all, actually I find them to quite respectful.
    Even though most women won’t admit it, they care about what men think about them, therefore, women are extra-sensitive to criticism.

  6. Even though most women won’t admit it, they care about what men think about them, therefore, women are extra-sensitive to criticism.

    Excellent, excellent point, LLB7. Men outside the manosphere don’t know this, but their righteous judgment is so powerful. Thing is, they’d have to have the backbone to endure female shrieks and White Knight disapproval in order to express a negative opinion of female behavior.

    And I understand that people get very upset about the current culture, it is completely natural and normal reaction. And it seems much of Christian manosphere is dedicated to focusing on this. I see reason for this, but I also really wish that we could also say, “Yes, this person sinned, this person is lost, let us try everything we can to help them to come to the Lord, and offer them also love and compassion”.

    I understand what you are saying, EOF, but I question if this is possible in the online world. That kind of correction is mostly done in the real world (what one my daughters calls “the outer-net”, lol) in face-to-face interactions. Hopefully we are all doing that in the real world when we interact with real individuals. But online, what I see us doing is creating new narratives (actually, reclaiming old ones) to replace the false narratives of our wicked, modern, liberal/progressive culture. People are hopefully replacing false narratives (blue pill?) with reality (red pill) and then taking that out into the real world where they can actually do some good with it.

  7. Frankly, a female oriented Red Pill site is overdue.

    I used to think so, too, but now I don’t. Modern women alone in groups without male oversight are a disaster, no matter how well-intentioned they start out. We just cannot police ourselves anymore, if we ever could. I’ve seen the results of all-women groups both online and in the real-world (all-female Bible study groups) and the results are not only not useful but usually actively harmful.

  8. A similar accusation that has also been thrown around, often accompanying the argument about the manosphere in general, is that the Christian manosphere is not a loving place. This accusation has some merit in my view.

    Meh.

    Love is a verb. Teh manosphere is all about loving….tough loving. Getting folks to face the ugly truths about themselves, about society, and about the corruption in the church.

    It is the love of a Father meeting out much needed discipline to a recalcitrant child.

    As for blogs for women…what’s wrong with recommending the likes of SSM, Elspeth, Stingray, Hearthie et al?

  9. I think these two posts should be read by women who want to understand why the Manosphere is such a “harsh environment.”

    http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-socialization-of-men-and-women/
    http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/the-selfish-and-unselfish-socialization-of-men/

    Because men and women socialize differently, women will always feel hurt when they hear men talk to other men about subjects.

    Men don’t varnish the truth when they communicate with each other. But when a man communicates in loving way to women he uses indirect truth which blunts the sting.

    Women must realize, like Donal says, that men writing to other men is and will always sound harsh because that is the way we communicate with each other. We attack each others arguments and criticize each other relentlessly with what looks like no sympathy or empathy, but in fact we care about each other enough that we do that to spur each other on towards righteousness.

  10. @ Sunshine Mary

    I like your bit about guardrails. And you know my stance about the importance of social order.

    The fact is, much of the non-Christian red pill/reactionary sphere are disgusted by Christians because they see us as the source of the problem because of our nonjudgmentalism. They are much quicker to say, “X is wrong and people who do X are causing problems. Therefore we need to stigmatize X behavior and shame people who engage in X.” They see Christians as being happy-clappy enablers. And they’re often right.

    It isn’t simply the non-judgmentalism, although that is part of it. More important is the rank hypocrisy by many “Christians” who do more than turn a blind eye towards problems, but actively encourage them. A fair number of so-called Christians these days call vice virtue and virtue vice.

    It might be helpful if some of us committed to check each other by email or something. At this point, I would have to say that only men should levy this correction, both on each other and on women. Women (including me) have lost all credibility when it comes to correcting others for being inappropriately judgmental and should probably just close our mouths.

    Ok. If you get out of line, I will be sure and let you know. I will trust guys like DS and Chad to do the same for me.

  11. @ EOF

    While I agree about the importance of conversion, and of helping others turn from sin, I think Sunshine Mary is right that the internet isn’t the place for it. It is too impersonal, and thus easily dismissed. Besides, as Deep Strength has pointed out, it is our actions which help demonstrate our faith, not words. And the internet isn’t the place for that.

  12. @ Keoni Galt

    For most folks, I would agree with you that it is tough loving. But there are some exceptions out there who are filled only with hate, despite claiming to be Christians. They are not common, but they are out there.

    I do recommend those blogs, by the way. But none are specifically geared towards single Christian women. All are more general, and since all those women are married they tend to have a married focus (which is good). What I am talking about is a Titus 2 type blog which helps knock the Churchian nonsense out of young, single Christian women’s heads.

  13. @ Deep Strength

    I’ve updated the post to include those two links.

  14. Elspeth

    I do recommend those blogs, by the way. But none are specifically geared towards single Christian women.

    I actually have a post in the works geared toward single Christian women that is inspired in large part by something my husband said recently. It pains me to eat the crow that I no doubt will have to eat, but I’m going to get it posted. Hopefully sometime next week.

  15. Geez Elspeth, thanks for pulling the rug out from underneath me… =)

    Looking forward to what you have to say.

  16. Great post, donalgraeme! You explained things very well.

  17. deti

    “This is a male space, and it is going to stay a male space. And that means it will be uncomfortable for most women for the foreseeable future.”

    There really aren’t any other male spaces. There are no other places men can go to talk about intersexual relationships or to learn the truth about them. And even here, women are around, which then lends itself to an argument that men must then moderate and police themselves so as not to offend the womenfolk. Sorry, but that’s not something we men ought feel we need to do around this corner of the web.

  18. Excellent post.
    But…

    While I agree about the importance of conversion, and of helping others turn from sin, I think Sunshine Mary is right that the internet isn’t the place for it. It is too impersonal, and thus easily dismissed. Besides, as Deep Strength has pointed out, it is our actions which help demonstrate our faith, not words. And the internet isn’t the place for that.

    I must disagree with this comment.

    I can’t speak for women, but some men can be won by words. Even in the face of hypocrisy. As a young man searching for truth I went from church to church and saw truckloads of dissimulation.

    But I turned to God after listening to an audio tape (reel-to-reel; a long time ago!) by a Bible teacher I never met.

    The clear exposition of God’s Word convicted me.

    Though I will admit that meeting a real believer would have helped!

  19. Augustina

    In reading the Gospels, I find the Jesus reserves his harshest condemnation for people who have authority over others and who use that authority to lead people away from God’s truth. Jesus called out the Pharisees snakes and vipers. That was rather insulting, wasn’t it? Not nice at all.

    He drove the moneychanges from the temple with a whip. Here He even resorted to violence? Why? Because they were corrupting a house of worship, and that corruption would lead many away from God.

    Jesus said, “but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Again, these are harsh words. He resorts to this only when we have leadership who cause others to stray.

    Yet for many other individual sinners, Jesus was merciful. He did not approve of their sin, in fact, he told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more.” The difference is that with individual sinners, their sin only affects them and those near to them. But with leadership, their sin affects many and causes many to stumble.

    I believe there are many who deserve millstones in this day and age. This includes not only leadership of the church, but those who lead this culture. We used to have a Christian culture. Not perfect, no, but one that broadly supported Christian morals. That is manifestly not the case any more.

    So those who use the media to encourage others to sin, who make light of sin, or try to excuse their sinful behavior are those who I detest. The average person, trying to make their way in life, who are often misled, I can have some compassion for.

  20. @Augustina “In reading the Gospels, I find the Jesus reserves his harshest condemnation for people who have authority over others and who use that authority to lead people away from God’s truth.”

    This is true. I have thought similarly, but would phrase it that Jesus consistently reserved His harshest rebukes for the religious “conservatives” of his day. The scribes and the Pharisees were the ones who were the most concerned about people keeping the letter of the law; but who nevertheless failed to embody the spirit of the law. One person may be judged by God for fornication, and another for malice or unkindness. Jesus read hearts as well as actions.

  21. Regarding whether the manosphere is a harsh environment, I think it’s doubling as two things at once, which are a) a support center for men who are discouraged, disappointed, or bitter about their experiences with women, and b) a center of social, cultural, and political commentary about gender relations and Western society. Many of the ideas in “b” have been generated from “a”, which is necessarily going to skew the ideas in a negative direction.

    With a few exceptions, I would guess that’s why there isn’t a plethora of happily married men in these parts. (And that some of the married ones are dissenters to one degree or another) I know that if I were a man and believed even half of what I read about women here, I’d “go my own way” too. But it makes me more sad than offended, as I think that some are actually crippling their chances of being able to live happily with a woman over a lifetime.

  22. @ deLaune

    I’ve had some others disagree as well with me via e-mail. Your example goes to show that the internet can make a difference in that respect. However, I would also point out that you were already searching for the truth when you finally found that audio tape. Another thing, perhaps worth examining, is whether that is more likely with men than with women (or perhaps the other way around?).

  23. @ Augustina

    You raise some good points, although I think it works better if you use the word “influence” instead of “authority.” The Pharisees were influential, but they didn’t have authority in the time of Jesus. They were the political/religious opponents of the Sadduccees, who were the priestly ruling class in Jewish society.

    I think what it comes down to is whether someone is leading another astray (which is just another way of putting what you said). Those who use their influence with others (whether preaches, politicians or media types) to mislead others are the modern equivalent of the Sadduccees and Pharisees, who led people astray in the time of Jesus.

  24. @ Denise

    I have thought similarly, but would phrase it that Jesus consistently reserved His harshest rebukes for the religious “conservatives” of his day. The scribes and the Pharisees were the ones who were the most concerned about people keeping the letter of the law; but who nevertheless failed to embody the spirit of the law.

    I should point out that the Sadduccees were the religious “liberals” of the time, and the Pharisees were the religious “conservatives.” Each got called to the carpet by Jesus, although for different reasons. Your assessment of His rebuke against the Pharisees is accurate; they were legalistic and ultimately corrupted the spirit of God’s laws with their hypocrisy. The Sadduccees, on the other hand, ignored or rejected God’s revelation, insisting that only the first 5 books of the Torah were of importance.

    So what you ultimately get is one side being hypocrites, although being ostensibly correct in their theology, while the other simply rejected God’s teaching. This is actually a highly relevant comparison for today, as many Christians are either active hypocrites or have begun to simply reject those parts of God’s laws that they don’t like.

  25. @ Denise (again)

    Regarding whether the manosphere is a harsh environment, I think it’s doubling as two things at once, which are a) a support center for men who are discouraged, disappointed, or bitter about their experiences with women, and b) a center of social, cultural, and political commentary about gender relations and Western society. Many of the ideas in “b” have been generated from “a”, which is necessarily going to skew the ideas in a negative direction.

    I would move “b” over to “c”, and introduce a new “b”: a center for discussing methods, tactics and strategies for improving relations, interactions and success with women.

    Much of that is in the PUA sphere of course, but not all of it. There are others who discuss how to improve marriages and general interactions with women. Some are even offering thoughts and advice on finding and marrying a good woman. It is those two- “a” and “b”, which all add up to “c”.

    Where I suspect we disagree is that you think that “c” (mine) is a product of the negative environment encouraged by “a”. I happen to think that “b” 9mine) has as much influence on “c” as “a” does, maybe even more. My understanding of the history of this place is that “b” is actually the older of the two. MGTOW only showed up later, at least in significant numbers, in response to some of what the folks in “b” discussed/revealed.

    I know that if I were a man and believed even half of what I read about women here, I’d “go my own way” too. But it makes me more sad than offended, as I think that some are actually crippling their chances of being able to live happily with a woman over a lifetime.

    I have two points to make here. The first is that I agree that some men are crippling their chances of a living happily with a woman over a lifetime. But that is because many are looking at the odds and seeing that it isn’t worth the risk. They look at the divorce rate, and then look at how many marriages which don’t end in divorce are miserable, and they conclude it just isn’t worth it. The truth is that some would manage to pull off a happy marriage. But can you fault men if they don’t want to play Russian Roulette with four or five bullets in the chamber?

    The second point is your implication that less than half of what you read is false. Now, I agree that there is plenty of hyperbole and even some untruths around these parts. But to think that there are more lies/untruths around there than not, well, let me just say that we are going to have to agree to disagree.

  26. Augustina

    There is a recent incident that illustrates my point that I would like to relate. My 20 year old daughter has a heart to go out to the abortion clinic and minister to the young women who are about to abort their babies. There was a particularly heart wrenching case this Saturday.

    A young man, all of 17 years old, arrived with his girlfriend, desperate to stop her from aborting the child he wanted and loved. My daughter and her friends spoke a long time with him and with the girlfriend. They all pleaded with her not to go through with it, but crying she said she ‘had to.’ The poor young man was white as a ghost and shaking like a leaf, as he was helpless to save his child.

    A child lost it’s life. A young man is devastated. A young girl is guilty of the murder of her own baby. Now who is guilty in all this? Yes, both the young man and his girlfriend share guilt, as they engaged in illicit sex, which led to this child being conceived and then killed. Some may lay the blame entirely on the young woman.

    But, as my daughter pointed out, these two have been through sex ed in school, which teaches them that sex before marriage is okay, even healthy. They grew up in a culture which encourages them to act on their lust. Academic intellectuals justify this expression of sexuality as “healthy” and portray abstinence as unhealthy.

    There is no doubt that the elites of this culture, those who have influence and authority led this young couple astray, and have led millions of others astray before them. By their cultural influence and by their laws and by their authority in schools, the blood of millions of aborted babies is on their hands, the cries of millions of fatherless children accuse them, and the devastation wrought by divorce and broken families lies right at their feet.

    One can understand the actions of the young couple. Who among us has not at least been tempted by lust, and most of us have acted on it. But the cold hearted wickedness of those who have led our culture into the sewer of vices it is now, what do we make of that? How evil it is! Far more evil than the actions of this young couple!

    Yes, it would be best for millstones to be fashioned for our cultural elites, placed around their necks and for them to be dropped over the Marianna Trench in the Pacific Ocean, than for them to face the punishment they actually deserve for leading generations of young people astray.

  27. mdavid444444

    Denise, With a few exceptions, I would guess that’s why there isn’t a plethora of happily married men in these parts. (And that some of the married ones are dissenters to one degree or another) I know that if I were a man and believed even half of what I read about women here, I’d “go my own way” too. But it makes me more sad than offended, as I think that some are actually crippling their chances of being able to live happily with a woman over a lifetime.

    I’ve heard this sort of thing, in many forms, over the years. I simply disagree.

    I’ve been happily married for many years. I’m objective; I have no ax to grind. It’s simply a fact that most American women that I know (married or unmarried) are simply miserable creatures not worthy of a mate. They are fat, angry, spoiled, silly, entitled, immature, feminist. I warn my sons all the time about women. I hope marry overseas if they must marry.

    I do agree with “sad” part. It does make me sad. But avoiding the reality of things does not make one any happier. It’s much like North Korea or Russia today: the whole place sucks. Well, women in the West are truly a bad deal, and generally, normal men shouldn’t marry them, they should run like hell. It’s just a bad time to marry a woman, and most men shouldn’t even try unless they are a) alpha 2) smart 3) ready and able to tame the shrew, and 4) willing to take one hell of a risk. This has nothing to do with bitterness or anger. It’s simple reality.

    Women are going to find out over the next few decades just how scarce “good” (beta) men will become due to women acting badly. The good will suffer with the bad, and to pretend nothing is happening but a bunch of loser men complaining is crazy. There are solid moral reasons for the manosphere, and makes good reading even for happily married men. There will be grim social consequences for women (and the whole society) in the future. Brace yourself. Just remember, you heard it in the manosphere first.

  28. Augustina, that story was awful enough to read. I can’t imagine what it was like to experience that first hand.

    I’m working on a post that discusses, tangentially at least, the subject of our cultural elites. Your comment will fit in well there, sadly.

  29. mdavid444444

    Augustina, Yes, both the young man and his girlfriend share guilt, as they engaged in illicit sex, which led to this child being conceived and then killed.

    Wait a second…all people “have guilt” since everyone sins. But that doesn’t make them responsible for sins they didn’t commit. Especially not murder! The young man in this story has NO guilt regarding the abortion, period. The man (may) have helped to conceive that child outside of state-defined wedlock, but that’s got zero to do with the abortion, since women with spouses can (and do) abort without their husbands permission (or even knowledge). Abortion could happen to any man who has had sex, and he has no guilt in it unless he supports it. And don’t forget he doesn’t even know who the aborted baby’s father really is. Women willing to murder their own child are rarely chaste or trustworthy…

  30. Augustina, what a sad story. Lord have mercy!

    God bless your daughter for going and doing what she can, she is truly doing the Lord’s work. I know it must be very difficult for her. God bless her.

    Regarding the girl and boy, if he tried to persuade her to not abort, he has no blame for abortion. Of course he impregnated her out of wedlock, but he was willing to be a man and raise the child. All we can do at this point is pray for the Lord’s mercy, and pray for the soul of the lost baby. Kyrie Eleison.

  31. Augustina

    mdavid, I should have made it clearer that I don’t hold the young man responsible for the abortion. Sadly, he had no power to stop it. His guilt is merely in fornication, but in this society, he’s told that is a good thing. He was willing to take responsibility and love and raise his child. It was a tragic situation, all too common these days.

  32. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/03/05 | Free Northerner

  33. Pingback: The Three Estates | Donal Graeme

  34. Pingback: The Struggle Of Our Time | Donal Graeme

  35. Pingback: Q & A | Donal Graeme

  36. Greg

    All very educational, informative and rational, until we get to the hard wired bigoted dogma bit!
    The contrast was very revealing (about the writer), and reminded me of images of a dog with rabies.
    From calm and rational, to irrational and ugly!
    A real turn off!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s