This Isn’t Revenge

An assertion that is made with some frequency around these parts, mostly but not always by female commenters, is that the present feminist paradigm is a response to the injustices of the previous social system. As is often explained, “the Evil Patriarchy” is responsible for the injustices of feminism, because its oppression drove women to overreact and go to the opposite extreme. In other words, it is all about revenge.

A similar assertion is sometimes made about folks in the manosphere, especially those who fall in the “Pick-Up Artist” camp. The general idea is that after years of suffering under feminism, these men are “turning the tables” on women and having their revenge through pump’n’dumps and the like.

What all of this seemingly points to is an endless cycle of revenge. One sex gets the advantage over the other, abuses that power, and causes the other sex to “rebel” and seek to dominate in turn. Patriarchy –> Feminism –> Patriarchy –> Feminism and on and on and on. It is a very tantalizing theory. Certainly there are plenty of people on both sides whose apparent motive is revenge. As far as theories go, it explains an awful lot.

Of course, it is also flat out wrong.

Revenge is certainly a factor for some people. For them, it gives real strength and impetus to their pursuits, whatever they may be. But something far more fundamental is at play than revenge. That something is base human nature, specifically our sexual nature. There are two very important things which must be understood in order to comprehend why this isn’t about revenge:

The first is that human male and human female base sexual strategies are not the same. Where men tend to by polygamists, women tend to be serial monogamists. Men want sexual variety, women want the best possible man around. The sexes both look for different traits in a mate, and have different approaches to deciding if someone of the opposite sex is worth commitment or a worthy long term partner.

The second is to understand Rollo’s Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own. [Relevant post here.]

When you put both of these together you can immediately see that conflict is inescapable. Men and women have incompatible sexual strategies that cannot co-exist. At least one sex must be the “loser” in this conflict- at least one must see its preferred strategy and social order to support it, yield to the other. Of course, some among the “losing” sex will still benefit, and perhaps might even be individually winning. But on the whole that particular sex comes out behind.

[There is also the possibility that both “lose” in a social order which regulates both male and female sexual strategies towards some sort of “compromise point. Such systems are very difficult to sustain, as they are not natural to either sex and therefore will encounter opposition, on various levels, from both sexes.]

All of this is leading towards the logical conclusion that the present conflict between the sexes, on whatever level it exists, was inevitable. If you were to wipe everyone’s memory, so that the “evils” of the past and present were gone, the conflict would still be ongoing. Men would still want to be Pick-Up Artists, women would still want to be carousel riders who then latch onto “Betas.” Revenge might give some individuals extra vigor, but our base nature is pushing us in that direction in the first place. Both movements are merely natural expressions of our base nature, a base nature that has lost none of its potency during the “rise of civilization.” The theory of evolution and Genesis’s Fall both point towards a humanity whose proclivities lead men and women to do exactly what they are doing now.

All of this is important to keep in mind in order to not get bogged down by distracting arguments. Don’t get distracted by talk of “waves” or “payback” or “our turn” or the like. The blame game might be easy, and it might be fun, but it obscures what is really going on here. There is a conflict raging between men and women, one that has been going on since our species first appeared on this Earth. It is a conflict that will not abate as long as we remain human. At best we can merely control or contain it, but only through extraordinary, or even extreme, measures.

So when asking yourself, or when asked by others, what is driving feminists to oppress men, and what is driving men to respond by adopting “gutter tactics”, keep the following in mind.

This isn’t Revenge.

This is War.

Advertisements

39 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Men, Polygamy, Red Pill, Serial Monogamy, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Sin, Women

39 responses to “This Isn’t Revenge

  1. theshadowedknight

    Yes, this is a war, but look at the effort expended to make sure that neither side will be interested in a truce. How many women are miserably working a terrible job when they want to be a mother? How many men are numbing the pain with drink, women, or games because they are not going to take the risk of ending up an ex husband? The enemy has to scream and threaten to get both sides to reluctantly oppose one another. Conflict is inevitable, but so is equilibrium.

    The Shadowed Knight

  2. I do not subscribe to this idea, “Where men tend to by polygamists, women tend to be serial monogamists.” I think statistics and the number of women engaging in sex with multiple partners speaks to this. When it comes to extra marital affairs, women are just as likely to cheat as men. In fact, I’d say the precise opposite, monogamy is often far more important to men than it is to women.

    I also believe Tomassi is wrong when he says, “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.” The two genders were wonderfully and fearfully made, and deliberately designed to live in symbiosis with each other. The fact that we so often try to go our own way and completely foul up the nature and purpose of the design, does not indicate that the design is somehow flawed.

    “This isn’t Revenge. This is War.”

    It’s really sad to watch people, whether they be feminists or people in the manosphere, wall themselves off with pride and try to transform love into something ugly and revenge based. That is a perversion of what God designed for us, a symbiotic relationship intended to bring us joy and spiritual growth.

  3. “I do not subscribe to this idea, “Where men tend to [be] polygamists, women tend to be serial monogamists.” I think statistics and the number of women engaging in sex with multiple partners speaks to this. When it comes to extra marital affairs, women are just as likely to cheat as men.”

    The truth of the first statement is partially borne out when you consider the different reasons why women have multiple sex partners and affairs. Men’s prime sexual directive is unlimited sex, as cheaply as possible. Men have a natural proclivity to multiple partners — as much sex as possible with as many different women as possible with as little investment as possible.

    Women don’t want multiple partners, but they use that strategy to get the best one. If women have to sleep with one man after another to get the best one, and are able to do it, they will.

    Men cheat because they want sexual variety but have no intention of ending their marriages. We just want the new strange, is all. That’s why you often see men cheating on wives with less-hot women. Sure, she’s not as hot as the wife, but she’ll get the job done, and getting the job done is all that’s required. (See: Arnold Schwarzenegger.) Women cheat because they are looking for better men. If a woman cheats on her husband it’s because she believes her new paramour is a better man than her husband.

    A man who cheats isn’t necessarily unhappy in his marriage; he just wants the strange. A woman who cheats has almost always been miserably unhappy in her marriage, and is looking to offload hubby and get a new one. And she is miserably unhappy in her marriage because her man isn’t “the best” she could do or get.

    “In fact, I’d say the precise opposite, monogamy is often far more important to men than it is to women.”

    Only to the extent that a man seeks to protect his investment, and that he truly loves his wife. Most men truly, truly love their wives. And the character of that love is different from the love a woman gives her husband. Men love idealistically — because they love women for who they are. Women love opportunistically — based on what she will get out of the relationship and on what he does, or is expected to do, for her.

  4. “I also believe Tomassi is wrong when he says, “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.” The two genders were wonderfully and fearfully made, and deliberately designed to live in symbiosis with each other. The fact that we so often try to go our own way and completely foul up the nature and purpose of the design, does not indicate that the design is somehow flawed.”

    You and Rollo are talking about two different things. And you are both correct.

    Rollo’s theorem is correct, because he is describing one sex’s total victory, total triumph, over the other. For example, for a woman’s sexual strategy to succeed, her husband must completely subordinate his own sexual wants, needs and desires to hers to the point of cuckoldry, if she deems that desirable. She will go through life having sex with a number of men, one after the other, discarding men as soon as she finds a better one. She will probably marry, but will divorce and remarry for a better man. Her husband will live in constant fear that his wife will divorce him once she meets and has sex with a better man — and there is ALWAYS a better man. (Sound familiar? It should, because it’s the sexual strategy millions of women in the US.)

    By the same token, for a man’s strategy to succeed, his wife will have to put up with him having a whole lot of sex with other women. If she is lucky, he will stay with her and make her “first”, while he has numerous discreet and clandestine affairs, flings and one night stands with other women. If she is not so lucky, he will flaunt his infidelities in her face and make her suffer their indignities in public and in private.

    Where you are correct is that for both to succeed, they must compromise their strategies. The man forgoes his penchant for unlimited sex with lots of women, and settles on unlimited sex with one woman. He reciprocates by working to be “her best” through his provision and protection. The woman forgoes her desire to discard men in serial fashion, and settles on one man who is her “best”. She reciprocates by giving him unlimited sexual access to her. When that happens, then, and only then, does it truly work.

    Do you really not understand this? I’m trying not to correct or respond to women so much in the sphere, but I can’t let these inaccuracies and misstatements go without response and correction.

  5. “It’s really sad to watch people, whether they be feminists or people in the manosphere, wall themselves off with pride and try to transform love into something ugly and revenge based.”

    To the extent this is happening (and there are many other ways it manifests), it happens because both men and women aren’t willing to compromise; because both men and women want their way, all of it, all the time. I’d argue the current legal and cultural situation enables and encourages women not to compromise, to go for it, to have it all. Most of them can, and do, do exactly that. Why should a woman compromise? Why should a woman get married at 21 and forego the carousel? She has every incentive to ride and no incentive not to. The men who are willing to marry her now will still be there 10 years from now, and will still be willing to marry her.

    The current legal and cultural situation divides men into two camps: the top men participate in the sexual free for all; while the bottom 80% fight for the scraps, take what they can get, or GTOW. The patriarchy benefited all. The current situation, not so much.

  6. Novaseeker

    War and vengeance are, of course, related to each other in that an endless state of warfare is often characterized by cycles of venegance, one side against the other, as the tide ebbs and flows in the endless war. Because this state is intrinsic to the relationship between men and women, it may be better to characterize it as an endless competition rather than a war — it’s an endless competition to see who can outdo the other in terms of getting their genetic/sexual imperative vindicated. Hence Matt Ridley’s use of “The Red Queen” as a metaphor for how male and female sexual behaviors have evolved over time — each in response to the other, trying to find a new way to best the other after each adaptation.

    We are living in an age of maximum flow for the female tide, as it were. Seen historically, women are in a position whereby they can execute their sexual strategy to the greatest degree that they have ever been able to — so it’s a position of great strength. Men as a *whole* are not in a position of strength today (the Pareto 20% notwithstanding). The immediately preceding system was more favorable to most men (not the Pareto 20%) because socially enforced monogamy acts as a sexual subsidy to most men, who have much more difficulty competing in a free sexual market system, where they are thoroughly outmatched by the Pareto 20% men. The immediately preceding system also cramped women, because socially enforced monogamy means sub-optimal gene pairings for almost all women as compared to the gene pairings they can obtain in a sexual free market system. So in some sense the current system can be seen as a “turning of the tables on men”, and it very much *was* that, when viewed from the perspective of average men and average women (again, not the Pareto 20% men). Anytime there is a turning of power between the average of each sex like that, it can be seen as a kind of vengeance, even if it is only one stage in a larger competition/conflict between the sexes to outdo each other in terms of getting the upper hand in the genetic mating game.

    Now none of this undermines Rollo’s idea that men tend towards polygamy while women tend towards serial monogamy. The current market in fact bears this out very well — the Pareto 20% of men (i.e., the men who are able to execute their sexual strategy in a free sexual market) is practicing polygamy, while the bulk of women are practicing a hybrid of serial monogamy (either in non-marital LTRs, or serial marriage/divorce), on the one hand, and opportunistic sexual encounters (“OMG, it just happened!?!?!”) on the other, the latter typically with the Pareto 20% men. So what you have is the Pareto 20% men strategy currently being the real winner, because it impinges on the serial monogamy strategy of the average woman (she can’t get the Pareto 20% guy to agree to monogamy, so she takes what she can get from him, which is an encounter on his terms as one of his “plates”), while her main sexual strategy of serial monogamy impinges more or less completely on the strategy of most men (i.e., men who are not capable of executing the polygamy strategy, either in a free market or otherwise, and so who prefer a hard monogamy strategy, as opposed to a serial monogamy strategy). This simply reflects the overall socio-sexual hierarchy of the current system, in descending order: Pareto 20% men –> most women –> most men –> bottom dwellers of each sex.

  7. In all honesty Game, PUA, p&d or really any Red Pill aware practice men employ isn’t about revenge. Those practices are breeding contingencies men developed as a result of women’s shift in their own sexual strategies.

    It’s not revenge, it’s simple r/K sexual selection behaviors. Revenge implies a prior grievance to be vindicated of. The young men in this generation don’t get into PUA (the few who even entertain it) to get back at women, they do so because, increasingly, it’s become a ‘best practice’.

    In fact, if anything, I’ve written against the notion of revenge for a long time now:
    http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/15/rejection-revenge/

    Feminism was and continues to be about retribution and restitution for perceived oppressions, but with that ’empowerment’ Hypergamy became the primary socio-sexual order. Men are simply navigating a sexual marketplace that’s standardized women’s Hypergamy as the dominant social order.

    You should have a read of this:
    http://www.rooshv.com/the-contradiction-of-pursuing-casual-sex-while-advocating-for-traditional-values

    Imagine fifty years ago that only boxing existed as a form of street combat. The rules of boxing include using only your fists, not hitting below the belt, and not wrestling. All street fights were done by men who followed these rules. Then suddenly a group of men broke the rules and started implementing wrestling moves on the street. The boxers were dismayed by this change but still wanted to fight by the book, with honor. However, they expectantly started to lose more fights. Then even more fighters learned not only wrestling, but martial arts and Brazilian jujitsu. Now the boxers were getting beat most of the time because they had less ways to attack than their opponent. If they were forced to the ground, they were essentially defenseless.

    Men are boxers. We came into the arena with our beta provider method of combat, but decades of societal change has made that useless on desirable women, especially when you consider that young women in America now earn much more than men in major cities. That left us with three choices:

    1. Stop fighting. Many men have chosen this either voluntarily through MGTOW and soliciting prostitution or involuntarily through celibacy. They have failed to adapt counterattacks to new ways of fighting.

    2. Learn new fighting styles. Men have learned game and sought to understand the true nature of women in order to bed them. They have decided to solve the problem through analysis and effort.

    3. Leave to a place where boxing is still the main fighting style. Men have expatriated to societies where traditional sex roles are more or less intact and their boxing ability still leads to victory more often than not.

  8. The first is that human male and human female base sexual strategies are not the same. Where men tend to by polygamists, women tend to be serial monogamists. Men want sexual variety, women want the best possible man around.

    We must always keep in mind that what you are calling “base” strategies is, if true at all, a result of The Fall. Jesus said:

    He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh.

    The two, and from the beginning. Like the old saying Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve we could say, Adam and Eve; not Adam and Eve and Gertrude and Melanie as long as that badass Duke isn’t around. These “base strategies” that are “hard-wired” have been revealed from the beginning as fundamentally untrue. They only feel true because the hard-wiring has been shot through with 1.21 gigawatts of sin. The receptors are fried, man.

    In the final analysis, polygamy and serial monogamy are–like all misses of the marks (sin)–desirable to our hearts, but they are not a truth upon which we can build any meaningful knowledge except recognition that we are powerfully tempted to sin even in the most base ways.

  9. There is also the possibility that both “lose” in a social order which regulates both male and female sexual strategies towards some sort of “compromise point. Such systems are very difficult to sustain, as they are not natural to either sex and therefore will encounter opposition, on various levels, from both sexes.

    GIven that men give up polygamy and women give up serial monogamy, I would think (traditional) marriage would fall into this category. What am I missing?

  10. mdavid

    Rollo, Leave to a place where boxing is still the main fighting style. Men have expatriated to societies where traditional sex roles are more or less intact and their boxing ability still leads to victory more often than not.

    Great comment Rollo. However, the part I’ve referenced doesn’t necessarily mean that men have to leave their society, but rather to transform and recreate it. Those who do not adapt to the new ways will go extinct, like your first two examples to learn game or MGTOW…for these? Dodo time.

    Cultures below replacement rate (child-wise) are the garbage bin of history, with TFRs so low they can be safely ignored. Men who are cranking out kids? They are creating the future. And nearly ALL are raising their daughters in the old boxing style (to continue your metaphor) and those daughters will continue the boxing tradition. The ones who don’t and get caught by Roissy? They go extinct, while their mose docile sisters keep on keeping on.

    It’s easy to get trapped in the trees and miss the forest. Birth control is the nuclear weapon for men in this gender “war”, but hose who have fallen for its allure are history, along with their women of choice. We are currently in the middle of the largest “willing” extinction event in human history, where the human population is set to start to decline by choice (est. 2060?). The survivors of this self-genocide will be men and women who embrace family and religion, not feminism (or its PUA response).

    Cultures change, but the future always belongs to those who show up for it. And this will be tribes of traditional religious people who loathe feminists & the PUA mindset so thus metaphorically stone or exile them. St. Darwin (or God, take your pick) will have His way. In this era of high technology, k will defeat r over time in humans, and we will eventually live like Japanese who breed like Africans. There won’t be glass ceilings for women, there will be concrete ones. Human skulls have grown 4x in the last 5 million years; that’s a long time for a trend, and this demands alpha men investing in children with docile females to have their children.

  11. [There is also the possibility that both “lose” in a social order which regulates both male and female sexual strategies towards some sort of “compromise point. Such systems are very difficult to sustain, as they are not natural to either sex and therefore will encounter opposition, on various levels, from both sexes.]

    Again, what is meant here by natural must be understood as according to sinful nature. Which, like all sinful endeavors, is hopeless. When we conflate the two, or overlook created nature in preference for sinful/fallen nature (because that is almost always what we see with our eyes) then we get a nihilistic view of life and marriage such as this:

    All of this is leading towards the logical conclusion that the present conflict between the sexes, on whatever level it exists, was inevitable.

    In contrast, Paul tells Christians to marry, and to let their marriages show the created nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. He continues that in this way–through marriage of one man and one woman–the mystery of Christ and His Church are revealed to the world.

    Is the revealed mystery between Christ and His Church “warfare”, or “unnatural”, or “a losing proposition” for one side? Rather, it is 180 degrees from resigning oneself to drawing up battle-lines.

  12. theshadowedknight

    Stingray, men and women allowed marriage to be destroyed. It was a joint effort, because they both thought that they could get an advantage. That women won out more than men is simply the result of men not being sufficiently ruthless.

    The Shadowed Knight

  13. Is the revealed mystery between Christ and His Church “warfare”, or “unnatural”, or “a losing proposition” for one side? Rather, it is 180 degrees from resigning oneself to drawing up battle-lines.

    Perfect and beautiful.

  14. An addendum to what I said above is, when I wrote: “Is the revealed mystery between Christ and His Church “warfare”[…]? Rather, it is 180 degrees from resigning oneself to drawing up battle-lines.” I was rhetorically asking, specifically, if it is warfare (etc.) revealed between Christ and His Church; which of course it is not. There is an aspect of warfare from marriage, but it is the two-become-one against sinful nature; against polygamy and serial monogamy–and not only those manifestations of sin natures, but many of them.

    How then do we explain righteous conflicts in marriage?

    As an out-of-marriage example: A priest (a shepherd not unlike a father is a shepherd) walking down the street sees one of his flock shooting up in an alley. Is it against the sheep for the priest to rush up and bellow: “WHAT ARE YOU DOING?” Is it war against the parishioner to attempt to drag him out of the alley if he is already smacked up, so that he may be cleaned, sobered, and rebuked? Rebuke from righteous concern is one of the hallmarks of love from an authority to a subordinate; not war upon him.

    Lest I tempt some woman to run astray with my talk of righteous conflict and rebuke: Women cannot be priests and women cannot be husbands. They can run away if need be, but they cannot lead, they are not called to rebuke their husbands, and I cannot see how they might usefully rebuke a man in sin. In fact cannot think of one instance of it in the Bible, but I could be mistaken.

  15. DG, it seems I incorrectly closed italics after “WHAT ARE YOU DOING?” Would you be so kind as to correct it?

    [DG: Fixed, I think.]

  16. Cane Caldo,

    I don’t think rebuke from women truly works towards men. Not in a way that is effective at least. He might stop, but he will do it resentfully and it’s chances of *taking* are less. Women, they can have a way, rather that inspires a man to be better. To want to stop himself. The reading about a woman helping a man without a word really is a profound passage and I believe it works towards more than just bringing a man to Christ.

    There is an aspect of warfare from marriage, but it is the two-become-one against sinful nature; against polygamy and serial monogamy–and not only those manifestations of sin natures, but many of them.

    Yes. And what a couple could accomplish together. Rather, marriage has become such a one sided deal where one gets pushed down while the other thinks heights are reached. Both are held down and neither truly grows.

  17. “Do you really not understand this? I’m trying not to correct or respond to women so much in the sphere..”

    I understand deti, and I appreciate your responses.

    “In all honesty Game, PUA, p&d or really any Red Pill aware practice men employ isn’t about revenge..”

    Yes Tomassi, it is indeed flat out revenge for many in the manosphere. Perhaps that is not the original intention, perhaps that is not what is in the hearts of many men, but oh yes, game has become all about revenge for a number of men. These are not “breeding contingencies,” this is not “navigating a sexual marketplace,” it is often hatred towards women and a thirst for revenge. My husband actually can’t stand to read any of you guys because he is even more appalled by the outright hostility towards women than I am, most clearly expressed by those who comment on your sites.

  18. Insanity:

    Can you give some examples of how you think or believe Game is “all about revenge for a number of men”?

  19. Insanity:

    Give some examples of game being “all about revenge for a number of men”.

  20. theshadowedknight

    Deti, you are talking to Insanity. She got thrown out of Vox’s because she cannot maintain an honest conversation. Do you really think the more lenient rules here will motivate her to behave herself? One is a number. “A number of men” means whatever she wants it to mean, and nothing more.

    I went to a language school for the military. Really rigorous, accelerated courses to teach you another language in a short period of time. Most of the teachers are women, and it is not uncommon to have a teaching team without a single man. Since the culture is so important to the language, we had to study that, as well.

    When we spoke to native speakers, we confused them with a disconnect. Here are muscular giants coming to their country, and speaking and behaving like women. See, because the only cultural examples were women, we all acted like women without being aware of it.

    Game is nothing more than acting like a man. Watch old movies, read old books and letters, and the same concepts are being discussed. Generations of men raised to be women need to learn how to act like men, and that is what game does. Heartiste admits this, and he is probably the most important theoretical and intellectual force in the manosphere.

    The Shadowed Knight

  21. T.

    After reading the article below, I can’t help I wonder if I ought to abandon my Christian faith in order to find a good-quality woman. Christian men, especially devout Christian men, especially over the age 25, are in a losing proposition. Even decent morally conservative women want to test the car before they buy it. I dunno. Why is God so cruel to impose these rules on me? Can anyone help me out?

    http://www.girlschase.com/content/dating-without-sex-why-it-usually-doesn%E2%80%99t-work

  22. Give some examples of game being “all about revenge for a number of men.”

    Come on Deti. Does Donal himself not say right here, “This isn’t Revenge.
    This is War?” Am I supposed to take comfort in the factt hat it is not revenge, but rather WAR? Also I got kicked out of Vox’s because I objected to his references to women as “human trash” and his advocacy of the Taliban, two other examples of outright hatred and revenge towards womankind.

    It’s one thing to be venting, to be blowing off steam and hostility, but for many men who comment on these blogs, anger towards women has become a way of life. It’s not healthy for them. If you cannot see it, there is not much else I can do.

  23. @ T

    Assuming that you aren’t a troll, here are some quick thoughts of mine. For a bunch of reasons I cannot add more, but I’m sure my readers can chime in as well:

    1) Keep in mind that the site you got that from is trying to sell you something, one way or another. Caveat Emptor
    2) That guy has an obvious axe to grind. So take all he has to say with a grain of salt.
    3) “Even decent morally conservative women want to test the car before they buy it. ” Those women are not morally conservative or decent. Simple as that. Does that mean that there are few decent women out there? Yup. Things are bad. Real bad. But as a (supposed) Christian you should know that.
    4) Calling God cruel is at best an indicator of massive ignorance. Assuming again that you aren’t a troll, you should keep in mind that God is Love. God isn’t cruel when he gives us commands and laws. He is trying to helping us, but often we just can’t see it. This is one such area. While promiscuity and fornication may seem fun, they have serious and lasting negative consequences. Life may seem tough now, but that route ultimately is far worse.

  24. @ everyone

    I’m going to try to finish and upload the follow-up post to this thread on Friday. If it wasn’t clear before, this is a two-parter. Cane’s comments are a good preview of where I’m heading.

  25. mdavid

    IB, It is often hatred towards women and a thirst for revenge. My husband actually can’t stand to read any of you guys because he is even more appalled by the outright hostility towards women than I am, most clearly expressed by those who comment on your sites.

    Pah. This “hostility” is mere justice. Women have been acting badly for the last 50 years, abusing men and the entire system to their own advantage, generally at the expense of children and family. Methinks you and your husband are lacking in a very important virtue if you become “offended” when the slave steals some bread. Why I enjoy reading certain game blogs? It is the beginning, just a sliver, of light on how badly women have trashed our society and what is going on within the trenches. Sin has real consequences, thank God, and this (in the end) wrecks justice upon the sinners. As someone once said, Roissy is the The Devil Virtuosos. He is. Women control sex, and look what they’ve done with it.

    Until women start policing their own and actively denounce their relentless injustice to men, they will soon suffer a deserved backlash in the West. Sin has a way of finding its rightful owner and very, very few men will feel sympathy for women when this worm turns. Why should they? They will have too many strong memories of how nobody, often not even their own mothers (read Vox for that!) had any sympathy for them. They were expendable. Justice and peace will kiss, and you can’t have one without the other. As another once said, God is clever, but He is never malicious. As women will find out when they get to the end of their life and the end of their family…if not before (read Roissy for that!).

    Note: this is not a gender-specific diatribe, and may have been written by either mdavid or mrsmdavid. I’ll let you guess which one.

  26. @DG

    Thanks for the fix, and I look forward to the second part. Hope I didn’t steal your thunder.

    I also got the troll scent from T’s comment.

    @mdavid

    Note: this is not a gender-specific diatribe, and may have been written by either mdavid or mrsmdavid.

    Ah! That explains a lot. I’ll have to keep this possibility in mind from now on.

  27. Novaseeker

    Pah. This “hostility” is mere justice. Women have been acting badly for the last 50 years, abusing men and the entire system to their own advantage, generally at the expense of children and family. Methinks you and your husband are lacking in a very important virtue if you become “offended” when the slave steals some bread. Why I enjoy reading certain game blogs? It is the beginning, just a sliver, of light on how badly women have trashed our society and what is going on within the trenches. Sin has real consequences, thank God, and this (in the end) wrecks justice upon the sinners. As someone once said, Roissy is the The Devil Virtuosos. He is. Women control sex, and look what they’ve done with it.

    All true, but there are gradations.

    In my experience with the manosphere, which has been quite a long time now, most guys go through phases, while some guys get stuck in one phase. The natural progression runs from crisis (what usually brings a guy to the sphere) to lightbulb realization, to frustration, to anger, to resignation, to decision as to what to do personally (MGTOW, self-improvement, etc.). That’s the normal progression. But there are some guys who get stuck in the anger/resignation phase, or who carry that phase with them into a MGTOW phase (can’t really do a self-improvement phase properly unless you are past the anger phase more or less completely), and they tend to be overly negative in a very consistent way without moving forward with their lives. We all know who these posters are, I think, because they tend to be long-term posters. There isn’t that much we can do about them other than banning them from commenting, and of course different bloggers have different approaches to that. But it’s true that there are some guys who get stuck in the anger phase and it doesn’t do them any good to get stuck there. It’s important to distinguish between those guys, however, and the new guys who are just showing up and going through the anger phase for the first time — that’s a normal and natural phase to this, and it just has to be plowed through and worked through to get to the more productive phases of self-improvement.

    Interestingly enough, the Red Pill Reddit site, which of course most people would say is filled with hateful misogynists, does actually call out guys who dwell too much on the anger phase, with many posters telling them that they need to push past it to get to self-improvement. Of course, they pretty much all godless heathens and fornicators there, but they *do* call out guys on getting stuck in the anger phase and basically disliking/hating women for being who they are (in our eyes, who they are in their fallen state). So it isn’t the case that everywhere in the broader manosphere such guys are allowed/tolerated to dwell on the anger phase indefinitely.

    I think there’s a difference, though, between that kind of dislike of it (which understands it as a phase), on the one hand, and the typical white knight disliking of it, which views the entire manosphere with skepticism and focuses on these “stuck in the anger phase” guys who discount the entire thing. The latter is a common view among male white knights who are outside the manosphere, and it’s coming from a a quite different (and in my opinion, quite wrong) premise as compared to to the criticisms of these “stuck” guys from other guys in the manosphere who have moved through that phase to more productive engagement with their lives. The white knights are an endemic problem, and are a main reason why we need the manosphere to begin with.

  28. mdavid

    Nova, I fully agree. As usual. Except I’m probably less hard on the guys stuck in the anger phase, since they are part of the solution, not the problem. Any anger I have personally is more sadness for the future. But 99% of modern women (and their knights, who are just as bad for winking at sin) haven’t even entered the repentance phase yet, let alone begun to atone. God will see to that, and the blowback is a scary thought, especially for everyone else. Think the French Revolution. Justice rarely limps.

    CC, That explains a lot. Explain?

  29. @mdavid

    Isn’t it obvious?

  30. mdavid

    No. Except perhaps you lean to argumentum ad hominem but don’t wish to acknowledge it?

  31. @mdavid

    i don’t always like to be dissed, but when I do, I prefer it in The Latin. Makes me feel earthy. You know: a man of the people.

    Or do you? Who is conversing with me? Is it mdavid, or mrsdavid? If the latter: What would you know about feeling like a man of anything? If the former: Well…that would be different, wouldn’t it?

    It would explain a lot.

  32. @ Cane

    Thanks for the fix, and I look forward to the second part. Hope I didn’t steal your thunder.

    You did a bit, but I don’t mind. Just means that I can quote extensively from your comments, which saves me the trouble of writing new material on my own.

    @ Everyone

    I’ve verified T isn’t a troll. He was, however, very much in a venting mood.

  33. Any sufficiently significant Red Pill truth is indistinguishable from hate to a Blue Pill mindset.

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/06/anger-management/

  34. mdavid

    CC, Ideas stand alone, no matter who says them. That’s my point. My second point: real family means unity. So if it matters to you who I am, you are so biased to gender or age or religion or whatever who cares what you think anyway?

    My suggestion: drop the ad hominem and deal with the substance of my writing, or just don’t comment to me. Your attempts to insult merely bore me.

  35. @mdavid

    I did not mean to insult you. Beg your pardon. I meant–and mean–that the knowledge that two people use the same ID is a good thing to know because it would explain a lot.

    As for the rest:

    Ideas stand alone, no matter who says them.

    I do not agree; nor does anyone else no matter what they say.

  36. jack

    Schadenfreude is the spirit of revenge, but without the will to action.

    Stated conversely, revenge is the spirit of schadenfreude, plus the will to bring it to pass.

    It is hard not a get a grim sense of satisfaction and justice whenever the tables turn and one of these arrogant, entitled prideful women get to eat the socially toxic meal they have prepared for themselves.

  37. “It is hard not a get a grim sense of satisfaction and justice whenever the tables turn..”

    That is revenge, Jack, and from a Christian perspective one needs to be very careful about gloating over the misfortunes of others, even when they brought such misfortune upon their own selves. A thirst for revenge reveals something unhealed in our own selves and unhealed things just wall people off from love. So in the end, it is actually the men themselves that suffer the most from being stuck in that place of revenge and anger.

  38. Pingback: A Truce… or Victory? | Donal Graeme

  39. Pingback: Red Pill Philosophy Bit: It all can be boiled down to “does it benefit the MAN’s particular sexual imperative or the WOMAN’s?” | Short Guy Seduction

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