Dee Vomited (The left lapped)

My dog Dee vomited. Then she walked away and never returned. That cannot be said of some women who are trying to foist their hamsterized leftist beliefs onto the manosphere.

The writer from the link above,  Kristina Hansen, who has landed an editor slot at AVFM, has a proscription and a prescription for helping the MRM to gain traction. If we do not follow her advice, traction will forever elude us. She rightly asserts that the left/right political divide has hamstrung the secular MRM. I couldn’t agree more. But her solution is too brilliant by half. Jettison libertarian/conservative beliefs and embrace secular liberalism. I saw this coming at AVFM for a long time, not so much because Elam is a liberal, he is not, but because of the commentariat.

I stopped reading and commenting there for this reason. There was a time when the comments section was part men’s issues and part a contest to see who could most cleverly insult Christians and/or conservatives. To be fair, Elam adopted a policy to try and keep the place above the squabbling. He asserted that his was to be a safe place for all ideologies to coalesce on specifically men’s rights issues. Seemed like a decent effort. However, I believe ignoring the ideology issue is not a solution and as I said, Hansen gets that right in her post. This above the fray folly is beside the point that I wish to make here in this post but in my experience, in the forced absence of ideology,  liberalism reigns. This is also one of the inherent weaknesses of what I call “The Third Way” (a term I clearly did not coin)

There is synergy between feminism and liberalism. Hansen, like most liberals and many conservatives, doesn’t get that. In a wall-eyed fit of dissonance she makes my case for me in her post and then in one of her comments following the post.

From the post:

A man who is homeless, mentally ill, disabled, or in any way held back by unfortunate life experiences and/or circumstances is not going to be able to hoist himself out of his hole without assistance. We need to provide those that are less fortunate with tools and resources to help them get to the next level, be it a place to live, a meal, or a shoulder to lean on. These things are vital in lifting others out of their negative situations and helping them to become as autonomous as possible while acknowledging that everyone has specific needs and limitations. We are not all capable of achieving the same level of achievement or independence because of human nature and other circumstances beyond our control. 

Then, in response to being challenged on her views and told that she was a feminist she responds:

I never suggested a nanny state. I said some people need a helping hand in life.
To support and empower people by giving them the TOOLS and RESOURCES they need in order to be as productive and self-sufficient as possible. That is NOT coddling. IT is teaching and assisting someone to become self-sufficient and as productive as possible. How do you manage to conflate that with feminism?
See, this is the fucking problem. Any time anyone suggests we help men by supporting them or offering some form of assistance to them there is this blowback from libertarians who insist that any form of that type of assistance is equal to feminism. It’s fucking bullshit and nothing more than an excuse to be selfish and do nothing to help those in need. And that is supported by the FACT that libertarians have done NOTHING to help men in any way other than blow smoke up their own asses about how XTY ‘should’ be done so that ‘ABC’ could happen. Should and could does NOT help anyone.
If that is all you can offer then it’s really not much of anything is it?

I am not arguing the libertarian case specifically. One comment after her blog post summed up a huge problem with libertarianism by saying:

you get 300 libertarians in a room, and you get 301 definitions of libertarian. (one will always disagree with themself.)

This is spot on. Again, I’m not here to defend libertarianism or any -ism, but that comment doesn’t say anything that refutes a single tenet of the belief set. It shows a dynamic that plagues gatherings of largely above average intelligence people discussing nebulous things. This problem plagues Game discussions for example, and it generally plagues any discussion where someone begins by stating they reject those things that are well defined because to buy into one of those is to be sold out and intellectually lazy. The third way has sex appeal specifically because it makes the one explaining it the only one who understands it. Its a huge pontification soap box born of an ego trip. There are as many third-ways as there are people who proffer them making the third in the nomenclature problematic on its face.

Back to Hansen.

She sets up the straw man that the only libertarian (or non-liberal) accommodation for helping unfortunate people is to expect that those unfortunates will pull up their own boot straps. That is utterly false. If I have to explain why that’s false and what the conservative and/or libertarian accommodation for the poor or less fortunate is then you may as well go read somewhere else. Sitting that aside, her prescription is the naivete of youth combined with empathy driven thinking, some Utopian-ism, and a nod to feminist-esque equality. Any one of those things is sufficient to discredit her. In sum she disappears into the noise of nattering young people, men and women, who have not yet figured out that the world is not The Game of Life and people do not respond as expected to the types of programs she proposes.

Lets take an example. She would, I infer from her writing, support the platitudinous job training center concept. They are going to rent some space in an economically challenged neighborhood and they are going to teach people some basic computer skills. Then, if it was The Game of Life, the person would move along until they landed in the “data entry” job where those basic skills are sufficient. She would picture row upon row of happily self sufficient data entering newly trained people. But that’s not how it works.

The expense to set the place up is added to the cost of the locally spent entitlements. A few folks may actually complete the training but most realize that its not the training, its the lack of JOBS close by that is the problem. There are not vast floors of empty chairs in front of monitors waiting the these previously untrained people to show up. So, the one’s who get trained? Where do they go? The DMV, and similar places, all government jobs, all created out of tax payer money, and all a greater drain on resources than the entitlements that were supporting the new workers.

That’s why  feminism and liberalism are inseparable. It is the image of the workers filling those empty chairs, keyboards blazing, that animates them. Never mind that the reality is more, “take a number” when you go to renew your license. She helps illustrate further:

The world is not as simple as libertarians would like to believe it is, where everyone is capable of the same basic level of autonomy and self-sufficiency. This is not just an ignorant idea, but it is also a dangerous concept as it leads to the vilification and denial of basic rights of those who were simply dealt a lousy hand in life.

Neither libertarians nor conservatives maintain the position that everyone is capable of the SAME level of autonomy. Pay close attention to her exact words…”the same basic level”. Should she not have said either “the same level” or “a basic level”? Why did she choose “same basic”? Is she saying there is a right to a minimum standard or that there is a right for everyone to have the same standard? I suspect she means a minimum standard but her choice of words reveals that her statement is purely emotion based. Liberalism and feminism are Siamese twins adjoined at the sameness.

As much as we men want there to be women who get this stuff, who we think can carry truths to the sistas with more moxy than we could ever, we are eventually disappointed. Or we are not, in which case we are reacting illogically to how cool it is that some chick joined our Man Club. For a moment we see a ray of hope, that our good virus has managed to jump genders.

Then we discover she doesn’t have a virus, she has a flipping prion.

[This is a little stale, date wise, but was sitting in my drafts begging for a click]

 

Advertisements

103 thoughts on “Dee Vomited (The left lapped)

  1. what an odd concern. The real divide is all about figuring out what to do, and at the end of the day isn’t a serious divide anyway since the solutions are so radically different. MGTOW, MRA, PUA, traditionalist–take your pick.

    Some odd websites you are commenting on lately. Wooly Bumblebee, and that one where the woman shrills man shaming all over the place, or ‘weenie shaming’ as she puts it. I think that the phrase “you can best support by saying you support” applies in some of these cases.

    [its a hobby, I am odd]

  2. The real divide is all about figuring out what to do

    And what to do will stem from the ideological frame in which a person dwells. The leftist feminist MRA (one happens to now edit the biggest MRA sire on the web) frame has appeal to many, maybe most readers who pop in in the same way churchianity has appeal to visitors who pop by the churchian church.

    Not sure if I follow what you are getting at in the opener.

  3. I just mean that her concern is odd–there was a time when ideology was similar to regionalism or tribalism, where you had few choices about where to hang your hat. Now? You can hang it wherever you like. A group of guys in a largely white collar area can focus on solutions that suit them while in a friendly way encouraging others to do what suits them. Our church is a poor church–whose outreach center was supported by well of business owners. I don’t get what she’s so worried about. It’s not the real problem. The real problem is that we are often dealing with people who are well intended and honestly don’t see the feminist ideological hegemony. Why create other problems when that one is complicated enough? And doesn’t she get that libertarianism is appealing precisely because it contradicts the feminist approach? She’d have been better off just saying “we need more men’s shelters and assistance groups’ and hardly anyone would have anything to say but “yeah, that’s true.”

  4. Measured in “normal” time, a March post is a little stale; measured in “Woolly Bumblebee” time, it’s prehistoric. Kristina Hansen is a whirlwind of activity, yet few people bother to notice what she actually DOES in the REAL world – they’d rather pick her apart when she blows off steam online. (Must be easier.) Kristina is not “the” head anything at AVfM; like me she is “A” senior editor. I don’t agree with all of her opinions (neither does Paul,who doesn’t surround himself with yes-men) and I stay out of the arguments (mostly perpetuated by a small handful of hypocrites.) Whatever her sex, whatever her philosophy, whatever her politics,

    that woman dedicates herself to the well-being of men.

    She has coordinated an MHRA group that meets face-to-face in her community (during meetings she stays mostly out of the conversations, so that the MEN can discuss MEN’S issues.) she submits news stories of pervasive Canadian misandry, and she has picked up the torch laid down by Earl Silverman: she (with Murray Pearson, another unpaid volunteer) is opening the Earl Silverman Centre, a shelter for abused men and their children – without ANY government assistance. Kristina Hansen is no keyboard warrior. She is a woman who puts her money (and her time, her experience, her skills, her connections…) where her mouth is – for the benefit of men. Kristina is not “some chick” who joined the Man Club, she’s building the damn clubhouse and giving the men every tool she has.

    I am deeply disappointed in this article.

  5. like me she is “A” senior editor

    Ive corrected that mistake in my post.

    I stay out of the arguments (mostly perpetuated by a small handful of hypocrites.) Whatever her sex, whatever her philosophy, whatever her politics

    I have no idea what these arguments are, who the hypocrites are or if they are hypocrites. None of that matters to me at all.

    You’ve clearly misunderstood the point of my post, and I do not write that in an effort to change your view of it to positive, only to explain that you are negative for the wrong reasons. For example, I did not suggest she was some chick who joined the men’s club. Read the remark again. It describes how men get lathered up by the presence of women before they take time to evaluate the woman.

    The core point is that liberalism and feminism are one, and that when someone is steeped in one, they are necessarily steeped in another. Its great she is doing all that activism, but it is for nothing if she joins the leviathan of liberalism to the degree she describes. There is a point down deep where it becomes mutually exclusive. That’s my opinion.

    Read the article as an editor, rather than as a colleague of the person I used as a jumping off point. Seen less defensively you will surely see that she is not the point. The ideas she espouses in the post I parse are the point.

  6. McScribe….got it, and I agree completely. It was the vehemence of her responses to comments that really pushed me disagree with her in a post.

    The (unnecessary) defense of her by suz, above, demonstrates a key point about liberalism and its bent to being SEEN as doing something. Why do you think there are those photos of celebrities in magazines followed by the labels Actor/actress, activist, advocate. These things generate internal feelings of doing something but lack the true (masculine type) satisfaction that comes when you look back and something was really done, something that sticks.

    It would be the difference between someone who stood outside Home Depot and passed out fliers about the property value benefit of nicely trimmed lawns verses the feeling of mowing your yard and standing there looking at cut grass. I don’t care so much about advocacy and activism as liberalism/feminism has defined it. Elam does things other than write, many things, he knows the difference I think (can’t speak for him, wont try). That’s why listing off all sorts of activism universally fails to move me.

    I know about your church and its the antithesis (from your telling) of the modern versions of advocacy and activism. It is also a great illustration of the point I was making when deriding the job training center. Clone your church 10 times and it would benefit more people than a hundred job training centers.

  7. Whether Ms. Kristina and the rest of the far-left camarilla at ‘A Voice for Manginas’ want to admit it or not, they are ALL feminists. Paul Elam himself said so:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/mrm-blueprint-for-bridge-building/

    Wherein Elam clearly states that his vision of the MRM is to complete the work of feminism. To that end, they have brought in a collection of leftist misfits, exorcised numerous genuine MRAs like Angry Harry, and rechristened themselves ‘The Mens Human Rights Movement.’

    There is nothing in this so-called MHRM but the imposition of feminist values on men: specifically, the cult of the victim, elimination of gender polarity, demonization of male sexuality, and generally doing what leftists always do: spreading the injustice and calling it ‘equality.’

    The course these people are pursuing is entirely the wrong one. Since men are treated with contempt in our society, men should opt out of participation in a misandryist system; not seek to imitate it. Look at what feminism has done for American women: compare your grandmother with carousel-riding androgynous bisexual sluts that surround us today, and you have the answer. To do the same to men would certainly ‘finish the work that feminism began’; i.e. bring our culture to a disaster that can never be rectified.

  8. I’m not sure how any of this other stuff is helpful either. Eric, let’s consider the following questions:

    1. Do you see that there is a difference between equality between men and women and the goals of feminism?

    2. When Paul Elam talks about building bridges, is he talking about between men and women or between MRAs and Feminists?

    3. Do you have a problem with for example his words “We must see women as responsible adults worthy of earnest respect, and men as something other than pack animals placed on earth for women’s convenience.”

    4. When he and other writers at AVFM acknowledge that men and women are different but equal, do you see that as incompatible with the Bible?

    I’m looking through it for the second time, and I’m seeing it as a critique of feminism but as also saying “this is the real equality movement.” I don’t see any appeals to socialism or any particular politics there.

    What I generally get out of AVFM is criticism of the popular culture. Fair enough. I don’t get my meat and bones morality from that; I get that from the Bible and association with other God fearing people in my church. I respect them even if I don’t agree with them all the time.

  9. Ballista, from that link:

    They wallow along with their confusing irrelevant PC mentality and inane warbling of the facts and intentionally confuse it to ensure that a different political viewpoint can be introduced along their own wayward, movement’s self-destroying mentality and agenda. It has already begun,

    That is exactly correct.

    And from the other one:

    This is usually a subset of “I am special and different. Everyone else is a loser, so of course they failed. Since I am special and different, I will succeed where the losers all failed.”

    Third way?

    Good stuff, odd that those posts came coincident time wise.

  10. 1. Do you see that there is a difference between equality between men and women and the goals of feminism?

    Yes, there is a difference. The goal as stated seems fine, because as number 3 says, equal rights equal accountability. The problem is/are as explained in one of ballista’s links and what happens when you figuratively have men and woman around the conference room table. Why should that dynamic change just because this particular group of women made lots of donations and parrot purely MRA ideas well? Someone like Girl Writes What can make great videos, content and presentation, others can write concise restatements of MRA issues, but when the rubber meets the road it becomes at best a massive distraction. Ironically Elam explains why when he states that the problem in 2008 was:

    Actually, I don’t hear that now, but I would have in 2008 because back then most MRAs were still looking to figure out how to keep men on their white horses and wanted women to look up at them adoringly for it

    He is asserting that since the males now involved are more Evolved this is no longer the problem, oh, but it is because the females are still in the mode that their side of the white knight equation describes.

    2. When Paul Elam talks about building bridges, is he talking about between men and women or between MRAs and Feminists?

    No, clearly its between men and women, not feminists. But widespread building of bridges between men and women, necessarily widespread when something gets as big and commercial as AVFM, is unavoidably between men and feminists because women are predominantly liberals and liberalism and feminism are ultimately inseparable. Its taken me a long time to reach the point where I state that with no equivocation. I believe it fully.

    3. Do you have a problem with for example his words “We must see women as responsible adults worthy of earnest respect, and men as something other than pack animals placed on earth for women’s convenience.”

    Nope. The problem is how he has ultimately gotten round to doing this. Again, see the link from ballista, consider male and female nature, and decide if this attempt is just an MRA version of utopianism.

    4. When he and other writers at AVFM acknowledge that men and women are different but equal, do you see that as incompatible with the Bible?

    Of course its not. But just as the churchians do, you cannot make that statement and leave it hanging or women will make something of it that is not being stated. That something is the source of the problems.

    All the talk if sweeping changes, through collapsed societies or through social evolution via activism are likely overstated anyway. We know that things don’t really get better in the world, so Ive always seen “the movement” as simple. getting men, one at a time, to see reality, which includes seeing God for who he is. If ever there was an actual large scale group of men, a size large enough to get on the radar of the population beyond climbing bridges in Spiderman suits , it would not have gotten there by extending an equal role to a membership of half women. It would build the bridge AFTER it foist its desired changes on society.

  11. Sojourner, I was thinking more about my last comment. Think about the relationship between husbands and wives, as it should be. You and I know its not about ogre power and such. But we also know its not about egalitarianism.

    W know that the bible does not call on women to submit to men, generally, in the same way it does wives to husbands.

    However, somewhere in the realm between wife submission, and societal egalitarianism is the sweet spot for gender balance in terms of operating a patriarchal social system. Extending this bridge is a nod to egalitarianism in every way. Just as before God the genders have equal worth and value, they SHOULD socially have similarly equal worth and value. BUT, the roles are different. This bridge equates the roles functionally, and therein lies the mistake.

    With this bridge we maintain the tamping down of male proclivities that are anti-social, and that’s fine. While they may or may not make an effort to tamp down women’s sexual proclivities, its the other things that are allowed to flourish, the things that create inertia or even drag on systems. The process over results stuff, the emotional sense of equality and power sharing, the utopianism (liberalism). As I read even the most well educated and accomplished women CEO’s and executives even of real brick and mortar companies, I cannot help but see these proclivities as a drag on those companies. There are rare exceptions. Rare. Similarly committees of women and men are dragged down by the same dynamic if even working on soft activism.

    At the very least surely you see the objection that in a society organized this way it would be near impossible to then order the individual homes differently. Women would (and are, and do, because this IS how society is ordered) flee traditional marriage to find their equal role in society. Full circle. These efforts are self defeating because of the old inch/mile dilemma.

  12. Apropos of your first comments, I would say that the Girl Writes What et al thing is not so much a massive distraction as it is a matter of how it is applied. Using GWW as an example she contributes in 3 valuable ways in my opinion.
    1. She provides an entry point for people who are wary of the MRM but are potentially open to it, and because her arguments are well thought out this is helpful.
    2. She’s good at dissecting arguments from feminists.
    3. She is a good example of the fact that vocal women who get it to her extent are very rare and that while admirable they should not be counted upon.

    In the first link ballista provided, the point is made that it is dangerous to be ignorant of history. It is noteworthy that feminism merely says that it supports men. ( a wonderful example of his is a paper on fatherhood written by feminists in the 90s–written by women who had by their own admission no signficant experience with fatherhood) men have enormously supported feminism to virtually no acknowledgement on their pat. Without the acceptance of men it could not have existed.

    I would say that the problem is not women’s involvement per se so much as it is men’s response to it. It needs to be subject to the same criticism as we have done to one another. If you look at driversuz’s response above, there are a couple of interesting things.
    1. It seems odd to say that the blog entry is too dated to comment on. Does that mean that the commentaries of Caesar are irrelevant because they were written a long time ago? Either her thoughts are significant or they aren’t.
    2. The chief thing she does is point out how much she does for the MRM, not whether or not she was right to write what she did.

    The concern I have with this is that women who join the MRM must be subject to the same critical eye as men who do.

    You do make a good point about how liberalism is entirely tied to feminism. My concern about that is that I don’t see that conservatives are really any different—in fact a lot of the manning up talk comes from them. That one website with all the weenie shaming comes to mind.

  13. Your threads are getting longer than I am used to reading around here guys.

    Short answer, based on the fact that I didn’t read all the lengthy comments:

    The MRM, from a secular perspective, cannot help but skew liberal. Here (again) is where I state my concern that Christians be careful of who they invite to the conversation when discussing how to return honor, sanctity, and holiness to male-female relations in the church.

    The MRM will eventually go off the rails into liberalism because all movements not rooted in the transcendent truth of the gospel veer off into a humanistic vein eventually.

    Just my .02.

    [Well, Cane got short so somebody’s gotta do it long]

  14. I also wanted to dissect suz’ comments almost exactly as you did but for some reason decided not to. What was my reason? Its obvious.

    Exactly correct though, the timing of the post is akin to pointing out a punctuation error and carries as much weight, rhetorically.

    The stuff the author DOES, financially and otherwise are window dressing that CAN be beneficial but again says nothing about what I said.

    GWW indeed does all those things. And I would hold out hope she would pounce on suz’ type comments if she were present when they were made.

    Yes I know about conservatives and all that. That’s why I didn’t try selling adherents to an ideology, but rather the ideology itself. I don’t get behind many people. The people need to get behind the right ideas, and my opinion is that liberalism is a bad idea.

  15. “4. When he and other writers at AVFM acknowledge that men and women are different but equal, do you see that as incompatible with the Bible?’

    Not only the Bible, but logic itself. Things that are different cannot be equal. Period. Men aren’t equal to women. Men aren’t even equal to men. I might grant an equal voice to all men, but it’s my grant that gives the equality; not their relative values.

    If I find a lamp for $100, and a desk for $100; are they equal? No, you cannot write on the lamp, and you cannot see by the desk. “Well”, you say, “They have the same price.” Only because someone assigned it, and that arbitrarily. Even then, this abstract value of equality is only as good as what you’re willing to pay. If you walk out of the store with my $100, then they arbitrary value is worthless. What liberals mean to do is not properly appraise the values of lamps and desks, but to be considered the sole arbiter of prices, and hold you ransom in the store until you buy.

    Any movement based on liberalism is a crime against logic, sensibilities, customs, religions…in every way except in the words of the guy mugging me up for my $100. To him, it’s an investment in equality. His equality.

    The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts. Therefore: Whatever works this woman (one part) is doing–no matter how well intentioned–are designed to to feed men and women into the liberalism machine (the whole) as long as she is part of it.

  16. Great post. Feminism is definitely synonyms with liberalism. And also a rights based libertarianism is synonymous with patriarchy.

    If mens rights are to be defended, they must be the inalienable rights talked about by men like Locke and Jefferson. If a mans property is seen as an extension of his own life, then taking it is seen as the horrible injustice that it really is.

    Also, a government run shelter for men is not even helping the root cause. The hopelessness that drives many men to check out of society is only perpetuated by such programs which take away a mans dignity.

    For men to be respected and accepted as men, means respecting their personal domains. Which means respecting their personal property. And also respecting that his family belongs to him if the covenant of marriage is in place.

    Respecting mens rights means respecting their Rights over their property and family. Respecting womens rights means respecting that she has the right to cede her life to a husband, or else her and her children are truly on their own.

    [thank you]

  17. Sojourner:
    On your four points:

    1.) I don’t actually see a difference, because, as Caldo rightly points out, nothing different can logically be equal. Gender polarity is not the same as legal or social equality. Andrea Dworkin herself recognized this and stated that only when gender polarity was destroyed would feminism have succeeded, although ‘equality’ was a step toward that goal it wasn’t enough. I don’t see Dean Esmay or Typhon Blue espousing anything differently than Dworkin in this respect.

    2.) The answer is that he meant building bridges between MRAs and feminists; apparently by adopting the means of the latter. Empath made a good argument in his answer to this question, but overlooked the fact that misandry is deeply embedded in our culture and fueled by feminism. Until women are willing to address that, any interaction with them will be on feminist terms.

    3.) Do you have a problem with these words: “We must see women as responsible adults, worthy of earnest respect”
    The answer to this part of his statement is no; respect has to be earned both when women start behaving as responsible adults and treating men as though we were worthy of respect. Until then, we are obligated to nothing for the female gender.

    ‘And men as something other than pack animals placed on earth for women’s convenience.’

    I don’t think most Anglo-American women actually do see us this way: they see us more like Southern plantation owners regarded Negroes; a necessary evil at best, and a dangerous horde of subhuman savages at worst.

    4.) I haven’t actually seen many writers at AVfM acknowledging that women are different but equal.

  18. Elspeth:
    As Jakob Burckhardt pointed out, churches, nations, or any other organizations are necessarily doomed from the moment the interests of the collective subsume that of the individual. You’re right: it is going to skew liberal since the collective will always drop to the lowest common denominator.

  19. Sojourner:
    “I think that women who join the MRM should be subject to the same critical eye as men who do.”

    I think they should be given extra scrutiny and relegated to a subordinate role in the movement at best. Let’s face it: women’s main contribution to the MRM was to create a necessity for it to start in the first place.

    What pro-MRA women really need to concentrate on is reforming their own gender. Why not start a similar movement among themselves? Men really do not need any help from them at all.

  20. The (unnecessary) defense of her by suz, above, demonstrates a key point about liberalism and its bent to being SEEN as doing something.

    Empath, if it explains things, suz is probably knee-jerking on something that’s a whole lot more recent that the feminist Kristina Hansen is involved with. Lately, she’s been making a lot of vicious hate-filled assaults on men in her Youtube channel and has (understandably) drawn fire for doing so from a number of quarters.

    She’s proving herself to be a scorpion, and as the other two articles prove out, the frogs trusting in the scorpions by letting them in the frog den will only bring a bitter end for the frogs.

    In case Elam hasn’t figured it out, this is the number one reason his organization is under (and on) fire.

  21. The concern I have with this is that women who join the MRM must be subject to the same critical eye as men who do.

    As the article details, men are typically incapable of standing up to women. The most “reformed” MRA will still white-knight. As I understand, a lot of women and supplicating men have been let into AVFM and a lot of real MRAs have been turfed out (before they renamed themselves MHRAs). And notably, this has driven the whole works into a place where the whole goal is to supplicate to women, and there’s been a few proofs of that (though all heresay to me at this point).

    The whole Kristina Hansen debacle is only proving out the folly of all of this.

  22. Who in Hell thought it was a good idea to bring women into an organization full of men prone to being dominated by women? It’s just stupid. Even if a woman tries to give men primacy of place, those men will subvert that because that’s what they want to do.

    If there are any alphas in the MRM, the best service they can do is lead the others to keep women out.

  23. Nothing different can logically be equally only applies in particular contexts. For example two men are trained in different specialties; one is a carpenter, the other a mechanic. They might each have a measure of the other’s skill but each will if wise defer to the other in their area of specialty. However before the law they must generally be equal. That’s equality.

  24. Hm. Reading/watching youtube channel. Finding the following:
    1. A generalized attack on Christians/religious people and libertarians within the MRM. This is unhelpful and prejudicial, a broad stroke without providing any proof.
    2. An upload of Girl Writes What reading Erin Pizzey’s testimony about domestic violence and how women’s instigation of domestic violence is still rather swept under the rug. Now this is frankly a good reading, and an important testimony.
    3. Talk about the Earl Silverman Center.

    Is there something I should be looking for in particular?

  25. Is there something I should be looking for in particular?

    Her videos that are drawing the response I mentioned are:

    along with the way she’s been conducting her comments sections is what I’m referring to. There’s at least four response videos I’m aware of, and a few other random things spread about.

    Let’s just say she successfully pissed off a significant portion of the manosphere (at least what’s been exposed to her) by doing this.

  26. Ok…I watched most of it. I had to stop.

    Migtao’s….love the phonetic MGTOW. I’m always behind on stuff.

    So, they are based on hate, and they havent “worked through the problems that sent them off on their own way.

    Some, indeed, are hateful. We all know that’s not a good thing. Hate as a derivative of anger, and anger if righteous, while again hate being wrong, is just a manifestation of frustration and hopelessness (I’m not plowing new ground here). Her counsel to “work through” these things is claptrap. She is offering a pop psych emotional healing solution where a Christian one is called for. But the Christian solution side is being misrepresented by the likes of SD and RLB. So, the experience these MGTOWs have is a society and its laws set against them, a preponderance of women they came into contact with set themselves against these men, some using the laws and social norms mentioned, they are now being told the solution is FOR THEM, get over it, get over it and join us the new human rights yadda blah liberal-in-sheeps-cloting organization and lets fix these things. How? well by typical micromanagement a la socialism/liberalism.

    In a sense telling them to work through their problems is correct. Connect with God, and get as best you can in His will, even if that means MGTOW. Now from churchian quarters the MGTOWs are being shamed that they need to marry, Driscol and SD/RLB and those like minded are there waiting to pour hot coals on these men.

    I asked after my last post, what was it that was so wrong with what those guys are doing? I should have asked, why can we not at least understand their clear motives, like the outcome or not?

    Now, what was once a growing secular hard boiled effort to help men has turned into The United Nations of the MRM. And, like the United Nations it will be known for processes and splintered interests.

  27. Who in Hell thought it was a good idea to bring women into an organization full of men prone to being dominated by women? It’s just stupid. Even if a woman tries to give men primacy of place, those men will subvert that because that’s what they want to do.

    The idea I think (and the logic is totally faulty) is that you need women on board for the fight for equality to gain traction. After all, the legal framework for the monolith that feminism has become couldn’t have been established without the active participation of men in power.

    Unless you can get significant numbers of women to agree that the injustice against men is great, then the MRM can’t gain any traction.

    I’m not saying that this is true or even right. I don’t know really. I’m simply offering it as a possible explanation for why women are given a seat at the MRM table.

  28. I don’t care who is offered a seat at the table. Merit is merit.

    That being said her “Let’s try this one last time…” video seems to be suggesting that she is upset with MGTOW who are bitter about women and with ones who are religious. I’m not entirely sure why even after watching it. As empath said, what are they doing that is so terrible that it merits condemnation?

    Elspeth makes a point about the need for recognition on the part of women. Unfortunately as I pointed out when I mentioned Girl Writes What, women who recognize this out of compassion or reason are rare. After all the current situation benefits women so much. Part of the problem though is that we also have a culture that dimisses men who complain as whiners. When a woman claiming to support men’s causes suggests that men who are lamenting their situation are whining, I am suspicious of her motives.

    A lot of the Psalms have this ‘whining’ in them–David complains about injustice, privation, fear, remorse, despair…and yet this ‘whining’ leads him back to his faith. Western culture does not lament except for ‘victims’ and disdains the notion that men can truly be victims. There are exceptions but it is taught so deeply that women are so much victims that men by comparison aren’t even real victims. Liberalism reserves compassion for ‘real’ victims.

    This is some bizarre ideological battle I had no idea was even being waged.

  29. That organization “under fire” is growing by the hundreds every week, in part because it refuses to participate in the religion/liberalism/conservatism/libertarianism/ect divisiveness that pervades this movement. (Because guess what? Men are diverse.) That divisiveness is the only thing that can stop the MRM. Ideology is for the well-fed denizens of ivory towers, who have the luxury of pondering their own versions of Utopia.

    “Boots on the ground” move mountains, one shovelful at a time. Being a “thinker” myself, I don’t disparage other thinkers, but I am also a “doer.” So is Kristina. Every single man who will walk into the Earl Silverman Centre, will be protected to some degree from the misandry of the family courts. At AVfM, we seek to serve men’s most basic human rights, and we couldn’t care less which ideologues wave their banners over our work and try to claim it as their own. Such Ideologues will always exist, but men in peril can’t afford for us to wring our hands in fear of them.

  30. I see–so in other words how dare we question her words? To be blunt, you’re arguing like a woman. You’re refusing to acknowledge what has actually been said in favour of pedestaling this woman you are championing. It is she who has been divisive, by attacking the poltiical and religious views of people who, so far as we know have hardly called for the dismantling of the Earl Silverman project or anything else, for reasons that are unclear but which she has seen fit to post on her blog and on youtube. You are arguing the way that women who attack men argue–you are using shame as a tactic. This is a shameful thing to do. It lacks integrity. No one has said that this woman is not charitable. They have disagreed with some of her words. This is the right of free people. Words lead to ideas, ideas lead to actions.

    Frankly, if you couldn’t care less, then go post somewhere else. if you are not interested in an exchange of ideas then go off to your busy life and do the important things you are being distracted from.

  31. That organization “under fire” is growing by the hundreds every week,

    1. The org isnt under fire in my post. SHE is.
    2. Growth alone is a fools measure.

    in part because it refuses to participate in the religion/liberalism/conservatism/libertarianism/ect divisiveness that pervades this movement.

    But it is participating in it. By the words it uses, by the folks that participate and the things they say, it is a liberal organization. I hardly think growing a liberal organization in this country at this time is a gold star achievement. Hang a shingle that says “human rights” and a dozen people will show up day one.

    (Because guess what? Men are diverse.) That divisiveness is the only thing that can stop the MRM. Ideology is for the well-fed denizens of ivory towers, who have the luxury of pondering their own versions of Utopia.

    The last sentence is cliche. It is not possible to be above ideology. Folks love this. They love to claim they have found the holy grail of truth and unbiased belief. You cannot really believe in anything if you believe in nothing. Defend beliefs….sure…..claim to have none but truth, bologna on a stick.

    “Boots on the ground” move mountains, one shovelful at a time. Being a “thinker” myself, I don’t disparage other thinkers, but I am also a “doer.” So is Kristina. Every single man who will walk into the Earl Silverman Centre, will be protected to some degree from the misandry of the family courts. At AVfM, we seek to serve men’s most basic human rights, and we couldn’t care less which ideologues wave their banners over our work and try to claim it as their own. Such Ideologues will always exist, but men in peril can’t afford for us to wring our hands in fear of them.

    What does any of that even mean in the context of whats been said here?

  32. It means we are pragmatic. We do what helps men in a society that hates them. I don’t pedestalize Kristina in the least, and I disagree with her plenty. I’m not addressing what she said because I don’t particularly care what she said. I care what she does. What she says matters far less than what she does. We don’t have to agree, but when we attack each other we we are divided and relatively ineffectual. Feminism will remain strong as long as we are ineffectual. It’s a fact; do with it what you want.

  33. First actual blog post I’ve encountered on the issue: http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.com/2013/05/shhhhh-dont-tell-young-men-about-mgtow.html

    That organization “under fire” is growing by the hundreds every week, in part because it refuses to participate in the religion/liberalism/conservatism/libertarianism/ect divisiveness that pervades this movement. (Because guess what? Men are diverse.) That divisiveness is the only thing that can stop the MRM.

    AVFM is a liberal feminist organization. Elam’s own writings (as have been linked here) have proven that out. Therefore, it is divisive by its very nature. If you aren’t a liberal that believes in feminist principles and don’t believe in supplication to women as a mangina (what empathologism and I have both pointed out), you are unwelcome at AVFM. In fact, even if you are a man, you will be hated, you will be villified. Men have already flocked away from AVFM as a result of the liberal feminist turn and the refusal to speak of certain issues (hypergamy, Briffault’s Law) in supplication to women. AVFM is divisive whether you want to believe it or not. Hansen’s writings (and a load of other stuff going on at AVFM) is focusing AVFM by association, in a very negative light. She’s proving both the liberal and feminist parts in spades.

    As those articles and history dictates it won’t be this divisiveness that will (and in the process of) bring AVFM down. It’s the supplication to women. Ultimately the epitaph on AVFM will read “dead because we allowed women a seat at the table” given the mentality of most men (the two articles will explain that), but the issue is one of supplication. As was written above, “I don’t care who is offered a seat at the table. Merit is merit.”. I’ve observed this personally as well as others. The AVFM blog has turned into a sea of garbage since their decision to add the H. The supplication to women has been noted in other places (again heresay since I don’t hang on that site enough to see if it exists for myself), to the point that censorship of contrary opinion has been noted to be common place. Especially with the garbage that women have posted on the AVFM blog. It used to be that crap got called out for what it is, but since women have come around there it doesn’t happen.

    Put the same standards on women at AVFM as men and then we’ll talk. But with the number of white-knights that have already revealed themselves at AVFM, along with the supplicators, the likelihood of women in AVFM being called out on their garbage is slim and none.

    The inability for the men of AVFM to be men without degenerating into white-knighting and manginism in the face of women and call them out on their crap will be what will bring AVFM’s demise.

  34. Suz:
    ‘Feminism will remain strong as long as we are ineffectual.’

    Feminism will remain strong if we adopt ineffectual means to fight it. Trying to adopt the means of the enemy and fight them on their own terms is bad strategy, no matter how you slice it.

    http://www.kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-right-road-correct-response-to.html

    “How can a cogent and effective men’s movement ever develop? The answer is that it won’t—at least not the way feminism developed, with government grants and patronage. It must choose a different road, one that acknowledges public indifference to men’s issues. In short, the Sympathy Gap needs expanding, not contracting, and reciprocating in kind. Since men are treated as expendable mercenaries, they should embrace that role…

    “The strongest man is he who stands alone, and no man demonstrates this truth more clearly than the mercenary male, striding from land to land without bonds, ideals, or commitments. Stunned and shaking, the elites and their feminist allies already tremble at this rising tide of masculine disengagement.”

  35. @Elspeth

    “The idea I think (and the logic is not totally faulty) is that you need women on board for the fight for equality to gain traction. After all, the legal framework for the monolith that feminism has become couldn’t have been established without the active participation of men in power.”

    Yes, exactly. It was MEN who established the legal framework and monolith.

    No, you don’t need women for this. Women are followers. You need men, and you need more men to lead those men. There’s no pragmatic effort that will substitute.

    Look, I don’t really care. Does Woolee Bumblewhatever help men? Sure, I’m willing to think so–those men in particular–,but men as a whole? No, sorry. I don’t hate her. The MRM is worthless, in my estimation. Law influences culture, but culture forms law. Fix the movies, and then the laws will be changed. Fix the families, and the next generation will swarm the law. There’s nothing this Woolee woman is doing that a loyal and righteous stay-at-home mother and housewife with six kids isn’t beating the skirts off of.

  36. Paul Elam and AVfM – feminist? Complete and utter nonsense. If you want to prove that, you’re going to have to do some serious redefining of a lot of words, and some serious quote-mining. David Futrelle can show you how, but don’t bother on my account.

  37. 8For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.

    20Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

    26Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

    Let’s give one another some grace here. It’s wrong of Kristina to condemn people just for being religious; if they are being evil towards others, fair enough. It’s also wrong of Cane to condemn the MRM when it has been one of the most vocal ways that feminism is criticized. And it is wrong to simply accuse AVFM of being feminist because they take on a stance of egalitarianism. Maybe I’m a fool. I see all this as blind men with the elephant. The original blog post was to show how there is a dangerous tendency for liberalization in the movement to challenge feminism and encourage men to actually provide discouragement to men and encouragement to feminism; we should be able to acknowledge this without it being the end of the world.

  38. sojourner: actually Eric nails up above why AVFM is being referred to as feminist:

    There is nothing in this so-called MHRM but the imposition of feminist values on men: specifically, the cult of the victim, elimination of gender polarity, demonization of male sexuality, and generally doing what leftists always do: spreading the injustice and calling it ‘equality.’

    Flip the genders and AVFM looks and smells like any other feminist site. You aren’t going to effect any good change by seeking to emulate the feminists and seek to “finish the job that feminism started”.

  39. Let’s give one another some grace here. It’s wrong of Kristina to condemn people just for being religious; if they are being evil towards others, fair enough. It’s also wrong of Cane to condemn the MRM when it has been one of the most vocal ways that feminism is criticized. And it is wrong to simply accuse AVFM of being feminist because they take on a stance of egalitarianism. Maybe I’m a fool. I see all this as blind men with the elephant. The original blog post was to show how there is a dangerous tendency for liberalization in the movement to challenge feminism and encourage men to actually provide discouragement to men and encouragement to feminism; we should be able to acknowledge this without it being the end of the world.

    I don’t feel uncharitable about what Ive said. I reserve that for name calling and such, which I also fall into on occasion.

    There is a difference in condemning people for being religious (I read “Christian”), and Cane saying the MRM is useless. He is saying that lacking a Christian frame, and a focus on what God says about gender in the family, there are no blocks with which to build anything. Its like this…we know things go downhill in general. We also know that while the world literally goes to hell, we are salt and light and we can and should impact people to be saved, and by salvation find the order in their own lives that mimics it as written in lots of scriptures. The gender order in marriage is not the end all to the problems of the world and the plight of the individual man. We still have all the other stuff of avarice and pride and lust and so forth. We have worship too.

    Where this takes me is that groups don’t really influence groups. Groups can influence a person or people. That is what feminism did. MRM is a group that seeks to influence groups without offering anything to believe in that is greater than what they saying about the minutia (in the scope of the universe and eternity) of the yes very real injustices. Honestly, i hope they do change a law here and there, that they help a man on occasion. But where does that leave the man who has avoided jail over child support or false rape accusation? He can join the MRM! Yeah! How will that help him live his life…..after the legal and social issues are off his back? It will offer the mission of the MRM as his life’s work, or he goes back to what he was doing before he got sideways of the system.

    I am glad they help men in the immediate sense. But they are on the side, actively, of deriding those things that would be there to truly help a man once his feet are under him and he is loosed free of that material bondage on the world. Even sitting aside religion and speaking of ideology, the guy needs SOMETHING to use as core values. We see the consequence of a population that not only has no values but is ignorant of them completely. The MHRM offers propagation of that scenario. Man cannot live on MHRA stuff alone. Only the advocates can. It makes them elites, and sets them above those they help in the same type hierarchy liberalism so promotes.

    The “end of the world” is surely not dependent on anything any MRM does. It IS quite literally part of what a Christian frame offers, where the end of the world is nothing more than an end to temporal focused living. I am not doing the same thing she/they are, in that i am not saying no no no, don’t do that THAT way, do it THIS way…..I’m just describing the bigger picture and why 1) they offer nothing lasting and 2) the liberalism intrinsic to them defeats their purpose by creating yet another derivative of feminism, call it 28th wave Human Rights Feminism

  40. I am glad they help men in the immediate sense. But they are on the side, actively, of deriding those things that would be there to truly help a man once his feet are under him and he is loosed free of that material bondage on the world.

    And this is one solid reason why I can’t support the liberal feminist vision. The cult of the victim leads to dependence, there really is no difference if feminists or PUAs or folks like AVFM are pulling the strings. This is why I responded to Cane Caldo’s original game rant this way and not pro or anti-game. In fact, the anti-AVFM argument (coming soon) would look very similar.

    I would rather see men completely healed of the ravages of growing up with feminism by being helped with no victim shaming, to the point that they can get over it entirely and stand on their own two feet as fully actualized self-determining men, breaking the shackles of slavery that all would put on them (marxist and traditional feminism, including the victim cult). I would rather see men not dependent or addicted to anyone or anything (especially vagina), set out their own missions in life sans consideration of women, set out their own values sans servitude to women, and find joy, peace and contentment on their own terms. I would rather see men approach all of these things with critical thought on what is best for him and his interests and not for women, and stand up for himself in these against all comers, both men and women, and respond to both identically. Christ and Christ alone is my personal answer and I’ll communicate that, but I won’t force the issue as so many others do with their interests. Christ bids people to come willingly, if He calls, the Holy Spirit will be the one to do that.

    In other words, I would rather see men become real leaders of their lives instead of being enslaved into following after others (with or without the deception that he’s somehow leading when he’s in truth a sniveling and supplicating slave).

    While God has me on His own path laid out for me, if I had to point out which group most closely identifies with this, it’s MGTOW. Coincidentally, this independence of the consideration of women in the lives of these men (read refusing to throw away their own hopes dreams and goals in order to service women) makes all women (and male feminists) quake in fear and where the hatred comes from for MGTOW from the likes of Ms. Hansen and feminists of all stripes. And Ms. Hansen’s reaction only proves that she (and AVFM) don’t really want to help men.

    (I guess I just wrote some of it. Oh well.)

  41. From that last link ballista offered:

    “It is also a liberal mindset to see the need to bridge and blend together opposing points of view.”

    So simply put, so perfect an example of big mega-themes that seem good, because, well, everyone just knows that building bridges is good. I had written then deleted a sentence in response to suz first post. it said, “diversity is not a good thing”. What I meant by that was not to suggest the converse. And I just didn’t feel like explaining myself. her sentence above is better. Groupings should just happen. If they are homogeneous so be it, ideologically, racially, gender, etc.

    I see this bridge building nonsense in the uninformed opinions about govt., “why cant they just compromise to get stuff done?” What is so good about compromising? If I have a value, and a compromise, well, compromises it, did I have a value in the first place.

    How can Elam not see this? Easy answer is he can, and is down with all of it. At least we know.

    Also from the link:

    They need to be in the limelight. Being forgotten in roles in the home or by lending support to men is just not cool in the same way as fighting for women. They want to fight mainstream feminism, not for the benefit of their men, but for what it can do for them. If you are going to be against feminism, you have to put aside yourself as a woman for a bigger and better cause. It entails appreciating men and trusting them to lead the way. A woman who identifies too strongly with being a woman, over being a Christian or even just being human, is always going to be swayed towards a feminist cause.

    This is precisely what the women of AVFM are doing.

  42. I believe in compromise where it is possible. I believe it means pursuing mutually satisfactory goals. However we’ve disagreed on this before. Pursuit of political goals and legal aims is not worthless. There are a lot of ways that people can contribute to great causes.

  43. If you think that’s bad, take a look at Sarah’s Daughter blog. This is what she thinks of MGTOW’s and MRA’s…mind you, this is a woman who is supposedly is anti-feminist, but she has no problem “man up” shaming men into marriage and relationships. She calls them losers if they decide that the whole game is rigged and that it’s not worth the effort. You don’t have to take my word for it, check it out:

    http://sarahsdaughterblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/mgtows-are-losers-part-iii.html

    http://sarahsdaughterblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/mgtows-hidden-sin.html

    This is the kind of crap that we have to look forward to if the MRM allows these voices to highjack the dialogue. Apparently we are just to “man up” and marry the sluts. This stuff is plain sick and it’s getting real old.

  44. So simply put, so perfect an example of big mega-themes that seem good, because, well, everyone just knows that building bridges is good. I had written then deleted a sentence in response to suz first post.

    If I have a value, and a compromise, well, compromises it, did I have a value in the first place.

    Anything Marxist almost always subscribes to the Hegelian Dialetic. You dilute an “unfavorable” view point by fostering the idea that dissension is bad and “unity” and “building bridges” is good, so you must compromise for the good of “unity”. Also, you come against those who refuse to “build bridges” and kick them out of the group or censure them in a violent way so their value doesn’t have force (e.g. CMDN and Karamazov). Ultimately the value is compromised so it’s no value at all. Rinse and repeat a few times and you got lockstep Marxism.

  45. Sojourner
    I also believe in it when I neednt adjust core values
    Also, I too believe changing laws and such are good things
    Not sure where we disagree

    Crimson
    Yes. I was there and they deleted me. I was also thinking of them as blocking yet another escape route, this one supposedly a Christian one. But then they just grew stranger and stranger to the point where they marginalized themselves in a sort of cult/bunker mentality fit of rage.

    ballista
    Agreed

  46. Well, what happened in SD’s blog is exactly what I see happening on the “Christian manosphere”..it’s becoming another gamer’s outlet..no real activism and no real call for repentance and reform on behalf of women. They take some women to task but then they subtly lay the burden and blame upon men. So if they don’t agree with you, you are just dismissed as a loser beta. I’m going to be writing an article about Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing regarding these so called “Christian MRA or anti-feminist” groups. They’ve become nothing more than a run-on Viagra commercial. I suppose, really, the only people who can comfortably give objective and straight up advice are either divorced or single men. Maybe a few married one’s too, but they are rare because they seem to like to take everything that is said about women and warp it around and say that if only men would be “attractive and sexy enough” that it would easier for women to submit…what a load of crap. That’s like saying if only God was more merciful, graceful, and freely offering blessings and saving us everytime we had a boo-boo, that it would be easier to submit to Him. What a load of bollux.

  47. Its no secret to those who know me and now you, that I am as i a because of a VERY near miss divorce, reconciliation after 18 months separated, so, I experienced the trauma that jars loose the minds eye to reality but ended up, thankfully, and happily married. Thats not to suggest that I or any married guy no matter how real they see the world do not have problems in relationship, but I learn things that even help with that.

    I see what you mean, but I dont see it as prevalent, not sufficient for me to throw out w/ the bathwater anyway. Then again, I run around a few sites and that’s that. When i touched SD’s site for the first weeks it seemed…..ok….and then RLB got all out of sorts. She piled on, the rest you know already. Its the worst example that I have seen (again, Im not widely cyber traveled to mens sites) of Christian wolves in sheeps clothing aka evangelical feminism. Nevertheless, faith doesnt blow back and forth as much as politics and what not so Im stayin’ on this team.

  48. It seems that some of you have adopted the feminist-approved “liberal” definition of “equality.” At AVfM, we don’t. We don’t believe in “equality of outcome at any cost;” we are striving for equality of opportunity and of legal justice. We consider “outcomes” to be up to the individual. Because of this, many people thing we subscribe to Libertarainism. We get every possible political label thrown at us, every day. We support the passage of the ORIGINAL ERA, the one that does not make exceptions for historically marginalized or oppressed groups. I don’t understand how that can be construed as “liberal,” as it was the liberals who fought for the bastardized fersoin of the amendment. We include people with diverse experience and diverse views, who share our core priorities, and moreover can carry our core priorities into populations that still believe feminist lies. We refuse to operate as an exclusive club. The only people we ban are these who advocate for violence, or who go beyond dissent and actively work to undermine our core priorities. I don’t know where you’re all getting your information about AVfM, but I have a hard time believing that most of you are getting it from AVfM. Or that you’re verifying the rumors you hear before spreading them.

  49. @crimson

    “Maybe a few married one’s too, but they are rare because they seem to like to take everything that is said about women and warp it around and say that if only men would be “attractive and sexy enough” that it would easier for women to submit…what a load of crap. That’s like saying if only God was more merciful, graceful, and freely offering blessings and saving us everytime we had a boo-boo, that it would be easier to submit to Him. What a load of bollux.”

    Good statement.

  50. Suz

    The context for what has been said here is all here. If I had simply written that AVFM was gone liberal that would be conjecture, or rumor. However, I parsed a piece. Others added links to other pieces that contained details.

    Ive seen it written that we should watch what women do, not listen to what they say. I need to think through a corollary to that because in this case it is more about whats being said.

  51. Oh my friend, stick around. The solipsism in the “Christian manosphere” is just getting started. When I mean “Christian aanosphere” I’m talking about places like Dalrock and SD’s and other baloney out there like Hawaiian Liberterian. Don’t get me wrong..they have good stats and really good information to share..but EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING devolves into Game Theory (not the statistics Game Theory, but I mean the essence of becoming a “jerk”). It’s one thing to use biblical power of rebuking a rebellious wife for her ungodly ways, but it is another thing to go around and playing childish games so that she submits to you…that’s like saying that we only submit to God because it is convenient for us. Just give it time, they will show themselves to be real wolves. I’d stay the hell away from idiots like Athol Kay. He is solely focused on the man doing all the changing without holding women’s feet to the fire to change. Apparently if you aren’t having mind-blowing sex and indulging in masculine-feminine SBDM euphoria, you’re not a “real man”. Be warned, brother. What started out as a good thing, can easily devolve into degeneracy.

  52. You make some good point, CV. Much of marriage/LTR “game” does come down to husbands doing all the working and changing to get the wife to rediscover her desire.

    A lot of how a wife submits (or not) comes down to seeds sown well before she ever meets her future husband.

  53. @Crimson

    “Oh my friend, stick around. The solipsism in the “Christian manosphere” is just getting started.”

    I’m going to take a shot in the dark here, and take it you’ve never read my words before.

    I disagree with Dalrock and Keoni Galt in a few superficial areas. Our disagreements are only important because we are each talking to others, and so appearances matter. Both of them are honest, humble, and generous men, and from them I have learned a lot. I praise God for them, and have nothing but good things to say of either.

    They are not wolves in sheep’s clothing. They have been good shepherds to this sheep. They have both given me their massive audience to say anti-Game things. What’s more: Their own stories attest to the rightness of their hearts, if you will see it.

    You have appraised them unjustly.

  54. When I provided counter-arguments against these guys, ESPECIALLY Keoni, he accused me of being some misogynistic “a*(*$%”. It’s one thing to awaken people’s understanding against the propaganda and Jezzebel worship that churches are indulging in nowadays. But to then have men responsible for being women’s redeemer’s is broaching God’s territory. Let me say this once and for all…IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO REDEEM A WOMAN FROM HER SIN’S…hell I can’t redeem myself from my own sin’s. Yet, Game is the almighty “snake-oil” potion that is supposed to solve all of our marital woes because an alpha man will magically redeem a woman from her sinful rebellion…I guess Jesus can just take a back seat on this one.

    As for the success of their marriages..1. we only have their word to go off of. No matter how much evidence and consistency is in their stories, it’s still their word through the anonymity of the Internet. 2. Success stories of miraculously rehabilitating failing marriages are like weight loss success stories. We’ve all seen success stories of how Joe Average lost so much weight. Or multi-level marketing success stories of how a few folks or even a decent size group of folks made tons of money staying at home and doing a “home based business”. The stat’s don’t lie that there are staggering failure rates in both circumstances. Not unlike the 50% (secular) and 40% (Christian) divorce failure rate. I appreciate that they allow opinions of dissent and debate, but if you were to dare countermand and argue against Game, you would get spouts of vitriolic hate. Dalrock is more even tempered I’ll give him that. But Keoni, literally blasted one of my comments without any stats (unlike Dalrock who has the grace and decency to treat disagreement with some gentlemanly conduct and logical debate). The behavior that Keoni indulged in was no different than Feminist shaming tactics used against MRM advocates. This was about a year and a half ago, mind you, but albeit forgiveness on my end, I do not forget.

  55. @Crimson

    “As for the success of their marriages..1. we only have their word to go off of. No matter how much evidence and consistency is in their stories, it’s still their word through the anonymity of the Internet.’

    This is a bizarre way to get me to see your point. You are somewhat cognizant of this because you took the time to write me back, which means you want me to read it. You want me to read it because you don’t really believe I am just some anonymous guy on the Internet, and neither are you; that behind the anonymity is a real person. Now, sure, we can lie (and MANY people do), but these things come out over the course of a relationship–such as the relationship you and I have now.

    Should I believe that Keoni blasted your comment out of “vitriolic hate” because you “dared countermand and argue against Game?” Dude: I write an anti-game blog; a blog I started after Dalrock posted a guest post of mine on why christian’s DON’T need Game– a post he asked me to write. When I started my blog, Keoni immediately put it into his blog feed for all his readers to see. They both read and comment on my blog, and drive roughly half of the pathetic traffic I get.

    So, somewhere between my story and yours, the idea of them being vitriolic at the idea of anti-Game talk has to be dropped. It simply can’t be reconciled. We know that they like my posts, and we know they didn’t like your comment, but since both contained anti-Game talk, that in-and-of-itself can’t be what they actually don’t like. They are also both clearly pro-Game. So, in order to move closer to the truth, you have to reconcile all those facts.

    On the other hand: You can end all this right now by just telling yourself that I’m some anonymous guy on the Internet, and so I’m lying, and don’t matter. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what sort of weirdo talks to people like that.

  56. Crimsonviceroy:
    “She has no problem telling men to ‘man up’ and shaming them into marriage.”

    On the subject of AVfM, this exactly what Erin Prizzey advocates. She’s an unreconstructed Social Purity Feminist (or 1st wave feminist). And so BTW are many femRAs.

  57. Elspeth:
    “A lot of whether she submits or not has to do with seeds sown before marriage.”

    Well said. This is why it is wise for men who choose marriage to seek wives from non-feminist cultures. The misandry and feminism permeates our culture so thoroughly that women here take it for granted that feminist principles are reality.

  58. Suz:

    “We are striving for equality of opportunity and legal justice.”

    This is an illusion.

    The laws specifically and social infrastructure generally are dominated by feminists and constructed on feminist terms. It doesn’t benefit men whatsoever if 50% of divorces end with the man getting alimony or child custody; or that college admissions have 50% men; or as many women as men are locked up for things that shouldn’t have been crimes in the place. It’s no benefit to men if they have an equal right to choose an abortion. These things are simply equalizing injustices and making men equal victims and an equally competing special interest group.

    I don’t go as far as many libertarians, who believe that the government cannot achieve justice for men—I think there are proactive things the government could do, specifically:

    1.) A uniform national AOC law affixed at a reasonable age;

    2.) Abolishing IMBRA and all other laws against marrying or interacting with foreign women:

    3.) Abolishing no-fault divorce;

    4.) Outlawing abortion and shifting the funding to adoption agencies and fertility clinics;

    5.) Removing women from the military, police, academia, and most governmental positions;

    6.) Defunding all phony agencies connected with the Abuse Industry;

    7.) Eliminating welfare for all single mothers except widows or other exceptional cases.

    These would be a good start and would do more to rebuilding families than anything advocated by activists or churches. But I doubt if you’ll hear even one of these points publically debated in today’s politically-correct climate.

  59. I never said that you were some anonymous guy on the Internet. But you’re not trying to portray yourself as some marriage guru, like they are. My post was not meant to be antagonistic towards you, and it’s regrettable that you think it is. The only purpose I post against their blogs at times is because almost everything devolves into some form of Game worship..where it is basically another spout for how miraculous Game is. I’m glad that you speak out against it and also glad that you have such amicable terms of understanding with them. My real beef got into the picture when they started to promote Game to young single men at the crossroads between MGTOW and marriage. They denied these young men the benefit of the doubt that they can learn to overcome their urges to lead a life of solitude in service to God. Such a thing denies the existence of God’s providence or his grace. It’s one thing for a married dude to dish out marriage advice..but to then go about and tell young men that since they are average red-blooded men, that they have to get married or else they will burn with lust. I’m sick of the whole Marriage Mandate theology that seems to plague these areas. If you were to do a numbers match up, you’d get to understand that the number of male virgins FAR outweigh’s female virgin’s..yet they have no problem promoting marriage..even knowing that any young man looking to marry will end up either marrying a divorcee or a carousel rider. None of these things go to really help single young man, but often times they have no problem lording over their happy marriages in front of single young men as a “I have mine, you don’t have your’s”

  60. Yet, Game is the almighty “snake-oil” potion that is supposed to solve all of our marital woes because an alpha man will magically redeem a woman from her sinful rebellion…I guess Jesus can just take a back seat on this one.

    This kind of stuff that comes from the PUA crowd is why I added that to the list in my comment up above. They’re just as cultish as the rest of the group about seeking to foster dependence on utter crap instead of independently making one’s own choices (as a Christian I would say “dependence on Christ” there instead, but each man needs to follow his own path and if Christ be that path follow Him and Him alone – “man can not have two masters”).

  61. CV, Yes, those combox crowd often devolves into game, or any number of myopia. Game in particular though. Let it not be a reflection on the hosts necessarily. Some people know each other, via email, via living nearby, like me and sojourner. We met on a forum a few years back and cultivated a connection on email, and if I ever find myself within distance I will meet him in person. Point of all that is, there are cross connections all over the place and the people who may reflect back from a portrait that includes their comboxes would not be the real people.

    I dont get hundred plus comment threads (this is the longest ever I think) but I can tell you that I have to disapprove of a couple comments weekly and never let them in. THAT is where you would find the real people behind Dalrock and other blogs, in what they do not let through.

    He in particular is not anti-game enough for my personal taste, but neither is he pro game enough to bother me that way either, and he is sincere and he does excellent work that is needed.

    To game itself, its hard for me to buy anything, the coinage of which is an endless refinement, then results in some dudes words being plopped down as if they are scripture. Rubs me wrong. But most of it is correct, doesn’t mean it manifests in good ways though. I could tell stories of how it has worked at averting train wrecks in my marriage on rare occasion. Baby and bathwater man. Cane has excellent posts about game and hypergamy being “good” as created things, therefore good. I recommend reading those.

    Ballista touches on the ideal situation. get women off The Personal Jesus and onto the real Jesus and submit to His will and this nature that requires game to tame will whither. Like a man when he is walking in strong spirit, and that is not 100% of the time, ever, but when he is, his urges and drives (that as Cane explained are created as GOOD) remain GOOD. Similarly she can do that as well, and should. The idea that we must constrain our wives with tricks and tools is saddening and sickening.

    Back on the topic on this post (not to get you off the game topic, just a segue)

    Look over at SSM and watch this woman Amanda (?) as she shows what this post and thread are about, how women will behave and drag down an effort if given voice to make credible suggestions for action.

  62. Look over at SSM ansd watch this woman Amanda (?) as she shoes what this post and thread are about, how women will behave and drag down an effort if given voice to make credible suggestions for action.

    Yes, as much as any woman might be anti-feminist, she can never ever be pro-male. As a woman, she can only remit into neutrality, and even then only at times (you know the whole Team Woman thing?). An anti-feminist anti-male woman is still a misandrist supporter of feminism.

    A pro-woman anti-feminist organization is still a feminist organization.

  63. “It’s one thing for a married dude to dish out marriage advice..but to then go about and tell young men that since they are average red-blooded men, that they have to get married or else they will burn with lust. I’m sick of the whole Marriage Mandate theology that seems to plague these areas.”

    That isn’t Dalrock’s position at all. Nor do I think it is Keoni’s, although I am not a reader of his blog. That is the position taken by SD/RLB and the Orthosphere.

    While I don’t think that “Game” can solve everything (it clearly can’t, and in fact it was my argument that it couldn’t which seems to have inspired SD/RLB’s outburst) that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. Its not a magic panacea. Nor does it act to redeem women. But understanding what makes women “tick” does enable a man to avoid the kind of behavior which might encourage sin in women.

  64. “There is synergy between feminism and liberalism.”

    The conversation may have moved past this point but in our small group this last week someone mentioned a blog post they had seen that touched on this. The basic premise was that for the most part men work based on what is objectively right and wrong and women work based mostly on what FEELS right or wrong. If we look at today’s church(and for that matter society overall) the shift from operating from a standpoint of objective right and wrong to operating on what feels right is painfully obvious. But the objective right/wrong versus feeling right/wrong split is also present in the Conservative/Liberal spectrum too.

  65. Clearly a lack of men (or presence of women) leads to liberalism. Check voting trends. Remember, during the 2000 election when Gore’s numbers suddenly took a massive spike up with women voters and polls asked women why?

    The answer was that they were thrilled by the way his kissed Tipper on stage at the Dem convention.

    [ETA: I read the whole article chaz, and he goes very wrong about 2/3 of the way through. He gets lost in his explanation because he is even falling under the influence of women via “the lift”]

  66. This just in…how pathetic can you get?

    “AVFM is going in a direction that won’t benefit the men’s rights movement” says Kristina Hansen. Hamsterlation: They’re not going along with my way and being liberal and feminist and hating men in the same way I am! Whaaaaaahhhhhh! If she’s reacting like this, maybe there’s some hope yet for AVFM being in some core way for men.

    Up to 21 links now in my list I’ve found either directly or indirectly relating to this within the last two weeks. Can’t say there’s a lack of good source material on this one.

  67. I swore off getting involved in heated debates on teh Interwebz awhile ago, but I’d like to at least set the record straight here:

    When I provided counter-arguments against these guys, ESPECIALLY Keoni, he accused me of being some misogynistic “a*(*$%”. It’s one thing to awaken people’s understanding against the propaganda and Jezzebel worship that churches are indulging in nowadays. But to then have men responsible for being women’s redeemer’s is broaching God’s territory.

    Don’t recall arguing with you, but if I “accused” you of anything, it’s probably because I got emotionally invested in the debate. I’ve re-read some old debates I’ve had, and regretted some things I’ve said. That’s why I’ve resolved to stay out of contentious debates. I don’t remember arguing with you at all CV, if you’d like, post a link where I accused you of anything, and I’ll take another look at it and I may even realize I wronged you and I would have no problem giving you an apology if I agree that I unfairly attacked you.

    That being said…. let me clarify my stance here:

    I don’t care who you are, there is only one person you can truly control, only one person you can change: yourself. Not your wife, and not even your own children.

    I have NEVER argued that a husband is responsible for being a women’s redeemer.

    My “pro-Game” argument only boils down to this: identify and recognize the truth, than order your life accordingly.

    You can’t change anyone but yourself. Game merely gives you a framework for understanding how women’s attractions work, and how that may or may not apply to your individual situation. In my point of view, too many folks are way to quick to look at any various facet of this topic “game/anti-game” and pass a summary judgement and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    The only purpose I post against their blogs at times is because almost everything devolves into some form of Game worship..where it is basically another spout for how miraculous Game is.

    I don’t worship “Game.” I worship TRUTH. Game is not a miraculous cure all, nor is it a guarantee. It is simply a set of tools…a new perspective to clearly see and understand just how deceived many of us have been. When I grasped the concept of female hypergamy, I suddenly gained near perfect insight into just how bad Churchian-feminism had corrupted most mainline Christian denominations.

    Put it another way – in Hawaii, we call the huge storms that sometimes form in the ocean Hurricanes. In Indonesia, they call it a cyclone. Different terminology describing the same damn storm.

    This is why I don’t really have a problem with Cane’s proscriptions regarding Biblical Patriarchy as the only path Men should strive to follow.

    I say men who study this thing called “game” should grasp the concepts of strong, masculine frame, avoiding pedestalizing women (idolatry!) and how to BE the head of his household.

    My disagreement with Cane, from my perspective, is based on semantics. I’m positive he doesn’t see it that way, but that doesn’t matter. What does matter, is that in our own ways, we are trying to open other men’s eyes to the truth.

  68. But you’re not trying to portray yourself as some marriage guru, like they are.

    Is that what I try to portray myself as? lol I never have, and never will sell a damn thing. I will never write a book for sale, nor even accept advertising for my blog (I’ve had multiple offers over the years to monetize my blog). Everything I ever wrote or advocated for, were things I myself discovered for free on the ‘net, and I have no desire whatsoever to turn around and try and make a buck off it. I only seek to pay it forward. This is what worked for me….perhaps it can work for you. Make of it what you will.

    That is all. Take it or leave it, YMMV, everyone has a unique, individual situation that has a million different variables involved. The only thing I do know, is this: I grew up in a house where my mother ruled the roost, my father is a beta nice guy through and through, and my mother has contempt for him because his lifetime of supplications and trying to please her has run afoul of her hypergamy.

    And I unknowingly found myself falling into that exact same pattern after the honeymoon phase of my marriage was over.

    Discovering “game” on the interwebz gave me the necessary schema to even begin the process of introspection and self improvement. I don’t understand how so many people get angry at me for doing so. I blog. For free. Take it or leave it. The only thing I get from the exercise is clarity in my own thinking and helping to gain a fuller understanding of things that were formerly enigmatic and indecipherable to me. That is all the profit I need.

    A Married Gamer Guru? Hah! Not in my wildest dreams.

  69. Pingback: The Cult Of The Victim | The Society of Phineas

  70. “and he goes very wrong about 2/3 of the way through. He gets lost in his explanation because he is even falling under the influence of women via “the lift””

    Not entirely sure what you mean by this. I’m not necessarily disagreeing, nor am I saying he’s got it completely right, just wondering what you mean exactly.

    If its centered on this point:
    “I’m not blaming women for the decline of the mainline. The men withdrew. The women stepped up.”
    then I agree he’s got it a bit backwards. I don’t see it so much as men withdrawing and women stepping up to fill the void. It’s more a case of men having been actively and intentionally pushed out. It’s even bigger than just the church though. Men, or more precisely real masculinity, is derrided, devalued, and attacked to the point where there are very few males who even know what it is, and even fewer who will unashamedly exercise it.

  71. Yes, chaz, that is where it went sideways.
    The more Ive been reading and involved in all this the less tolerant I have become for even head fakes in the wrong direction because they lead to large swings in the wrong direction as they get magnified by white knights and women who dont read the whole context, just focus on that one part.

    I spent quite some time scrolling through dozens of posts last night in the man section of that site. I had not been there in awhile.

    I found about 5 articles that I am tying together with Murrow’s and making a post that is a Christian focused follow up to this one that was about AVFM. Its a lot of stuff and may take awhile.

  72. @Keoni

    “My disagreement with Cane, from my perspective, is based on semantics. I’m positive he doesn’t see it that way, but that doesn’t matter.”

    I think this is close. It seems like our actual perspectives are probably very close, but our semantics do differ, and I think those semantics are important.

    When someone says the differences are semantic I usually interpret that as at least slightly dismissive, but perhaps you don’t mean it that way. Either way, the importance of semantics is hard to overstate when this is a semantic medium, and so many in the Christian Manosphere express their interest in semantics (their Bibles), but refuse to go to church. Without semantics, we’d have nothing.

  73. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/06/05 | Free Northerner

  74. Basically, Paul got tired of her and what she was doing re how what she was doing (criticizing libertarianism and MGTOW) was reflecting on AVFM at large. From the video, evidently the decision was made right after that first MGTOW that I embedded above.

    http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.com/2013/06/liveblogging-kristina-hansens-righteous.html
    http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.com/2013/06/wbb-saga-of-lulz.html

    If you do get the chance by all means watch it, it puts who Kristina Hansen is on full display.

  75. It at the very least shows that letting control creep away from the MAN in charge is also an invitation to liberalism/feminism. It would happen to an organization that consisted of only men, if you loose that central male head being in control, or a handful of vetted and close deputies.

    By being all things to all people you end up nothing to anyone

  76. Ok, I listened.

    Some revealing paraphrased quotes

    “everything has to be based on facts and logic” (watch this one while reading the others)

    here we go…..

    “Its not just a guy thing”
    “feminism is bad because its insulting to women” (FI?)
    “own your own shit”….[yeah, support liberalism and socialism] see number 1.
    “Im not much of an enabler”…..[yead, support liberalism and socialism] see number 1

    And her over use of the word “community”, that’s a red flag as well.

    Paul says he doesn’t doubt her compassion for men and boys. I do. And I think he was just being nice, which is a manifestation of exactly the danger of including women on the front lines, in real battle, and ideological battles. He tried pandering her, to his credit even he got fed up.

    Finally, I am just not following the assertion that she is very intelligent. But, fairs fair, I only have these prattling videos and articles to go by.

  77. She has uglified herself with piercings, an unkempt appearance, and a trashy mouth. How was it ever thought such a woman was even generally considerate of men?

  78. The error in judgement is from the same root as his attempt to build her up while letting her down. I am not mean for means sake, I do not favor meanness for its sake. I favor clinically open dialog properly vetted for making sense, even if I disagree. In that sense she was at least bold in her proclamations, but her proclamations don’t pass the most cursory of reason tests.

    I saw some of the same kind of reasoning in Suz’ responses above to this criticism of WBB. I do not fault Suz for doing it, I would fault Elam for not filtering it.

    I heard him talking about not caring what ideology informs those who agree on Men’s Rights and I still take issue with that. I will choose to suppose that there exists some iteration of liberalism that does not conjoin with feminism, but that’s a choice made generously because I have zero evidence that that can be the case. Maybe I would go so far as say that a place could exist sans ideology, if “sans ideology” doesnt BECOME the ideology, which is what happens usually.

  79. Ballista & Empath:
    If this is Elam’s real reason, will he now rethink the whole MHRM concept? After all, Ms. Wooly Bumblebee was a co-author of their whole ‘manifesto.’

    http://www.deanesmay.com/2013/01/09/on-mens-rights-activism

    Dizzy Dean herein says: ‘The Wooly Bumblebee—who, in full disclosure is a friend—was helpful in a specific campaign we did last year to contact hundreds of elected officials, and has also helped raise money for AVfM, which is definitely an activist site. She helped with that document as have some others.’

    As a side note, Esmay states in this blog post that the ‘document’ was “not a manifesto”. Uh-huh. That’s a little different than how things are recorded…

  80. If this is Elam’s real reason, will he now rethink the whole MHRM concept?

    This is going to be the real substantive question out of all this that remains to be answered. Paul Elam and the policies of A Voice For Men are what enabled Kristina Hansen to come FTSU (to borrow one of their vulgar phrases). Is he going to see his mistakes in all of this that allowed it to come to fruition? Will the rest of A Voice For Men do the same and act to correct them?

    The big mystery to come in this story will be whether Paul Elam owns his own mistakes in this matter.

  81. Pingback: The Descent Into Dependency | The Society of Phineas

  82. Pingback: On Submission (Why fathers Are Foundational) | Traditional Christianity

  83. @Empath

    “I will choose to suppose that there exists some iteration of liberalism that does not conjoin with feminism, but that’s a choice made generously because I have zero evidence that that can be the case. Maybe I would go so far as say that a place could exist sans ideology, if “sans ideology” doesnt BECOME the ideology, which is what happens usually.”

    I cannot agree. Liberalism is the business of liberating people from authorities both material and divine. From this very basic definition, we can see that liberalism is a nonsensical contradiction because before we can subscribe to the idea of liberty for all and from all, we have to submit to the authority of the argument for liberalism.

    Liberalism is a ruse that ends in insanity.

  84. I don’t agree either, or rather, i agree with you. That’s why I said “I choose [] generously”.

    I could have said “lets assume” or something like that.

  85. What liberalism is depends heavily on the context the word is used in. In the context of a political ideology/party I’d contend that it’s the absolute opposite of liberating people from authorities.

  86. @Chaz

    “I’d contend that it’s the absolute opposite of liberating people from authorities.”

    Hence my description of it as a ruse that ends in insanity.

  87. Pingback: The Politics of Hegelian Co-option | The Society of Phineas

  88. A relevant thought posted by Rick Johnson on FB just now. Different wording of something that was said in this thread:

    “General Guidelines for Reviving Honor in Your Platoon

    Keep it all-male.

    It sure isn’t politically correct to say these days, but there’s a need for all-male groups in this world. Once women join the group, the dynamics change. It loses its potential as a channel of traditional, manly honor. Donovan argues that, “As a general rule, if you introduce women into the mix, men either shift their focus from impressing each other to impressing the women, or they lose interest altogether and do just enough to get by.” Or as Kate likes to say, “Women want to join all-male groups because they’re so cool. But what they don’t realize is that once they join, they ruin the exact thing that made them cool in the first place.”
    –Art of Manliness”

    Having said this I would not agree with the idea that all men’s rights websites and blogs need to be men only. In fact, as relates to societal dynamics we absolutely need women who “get it” because they are the only ones that have even a tiny chance of being heard by “the opposition”. But at the same time, I do think that the definition of the problem issues and the direction taken in addressing them needs to be exclusively the domain of men.

  89. It seems that, in US English at least, “liberalism/liberal” is the opposite of “libertarianism/libertarian”. That in itself is a sorry state of affairs.

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