Trojan Horsing Around in the Sphere

Ballista74 , The Society of Phineas, took a bit of a hiatus from writing, redesigned the look of his blog, and emerged a couple of weeks ago with one of the best subtle communications I’ve seen in awhile. he explained his absence by saying he had not been writing of his experience while he was away using a pets first person perspective. If anyone missed that, it was a reference to my post Thank You Mimi where I therapeutically vented about the death of my mother this past February. I used my dog to tell the story.

Its good to know no deaths occurred in the family. And a clever way of conveying same.

Ballista74’s posts since resuming have been about Helen Smiths book and then generally about those women who have carved themselves out a piece of the manosphere. His most recent post, Chasing Without Knowing, Acting Without Responsibility is a comprehensive (not exhaustive because it is a summary) piece referencing several female writers and the attendant issues with each, and with female manosphere-ish writers in general.

Because it is not exhaustive, which single blog posts are unable to be anyway, it invites (hopefully with his blessing) other writers to take certain tangents and build on the topic. I know one other blogger said he intended to do, and here I am staking a piece for myself.

As ballista74 said in his piece,

[ ]these messages simply not being acceptable from the pens or mouths of men. Again, there are legions of men that have been and are speaking out, but will never get MSM attention with their ideas. In this sense, a man could never have written this book and have had it as accepted as Dr. Smith’s book. To that point, this book had to be written by a woman for it to see the light of day. The publishers in the MSM would have never accepted this book from a man.

How would we address this problem?

Would we stop reacting to the kernals of truth that come with these women’s writing? Do we scrub them from mention in our world? Do we attack them and try to discredit them, at least among our non-homogeneous group of writers and readers?

I don’t know. At the moment we sort of do the first one. But the danger is that men are mesmerized by women who seem to get our stuff. men like to invite women into our spaces. Consider some of  those writer’s (ballista74 describes all of this) insidious motives, the flawed ideological framework, and other specious things swirling around these women to varying degrees. Combine that with the tendency of men, especially the uninitiated, to latch onto these women without a full reckoning of their motives etc. you end up with lots of men down with the cause.

But which cause? Its almost like those ministries that are so close to the truth that Christians get sucked in. Folks deceived or ignorant and apathetic who are bought into something because it has shiny parts are in many ways more difficult to show red pill truth to than men who hold diametrically opposite beliefs. That’s not good. From a high view, AVFM is a prime example of this. Lots of what has happened there is coincident with the primacy of female ideologues on their pages.

I started wondering if there is a male influence in the lives of the more prominent female men’s issue writers? Venker and Smith are married. We know Smiths husband. Stepping away from national prominence, GirlWritesWhat  does not have a husband. Let’s consider our own subset of women writers. The most prolific is SSM. She keeps well inside the correct lines and writes consistently solid posts (small disagreements notwithstanding)The husbands of the married ones come from different perspectives. I am positing theory here, i do not know them obviously. The two authors have husbands that fit within the frame Ballista74 describes. They are like the men I described above who are mesmerized by a woman who steps seemingly cooperatively into a male ideological space. They are close but miles from the truth that lies beneath. In the case of SSM, if I believe her, and Ive no reason not to, she recognizes her husband as her head, and “wifes” accordingly. But I do not think he offers much in the way of ongoing ever present ideological mentoring, filtering, or editing. Not a disparagement, just is what it is.  I would be remiss to not mention Elspeth. Elspeth avoids the hard core ideological debates, or speaks gently and generally and sparingly into them. She never fails to explain that her husband is the role model she follows for her comments on these issues. She expresses DEEP respect for him, and it shows in her comments. I love the guy and never met him. I suspect he is too busy and not inclined to interrupt his life to think deeply about things that just are in his world anyway. he is an uncommonly well situated man, and will accomplish by example in his own fields. So those like Elspeth are unlikely to proliferate aggressively and widely precisely because they are in such a good place.  She will stay with teaching some women, and that’s not a small thing.

So, currently, the presence of men in the lives of these women is not making a difference for the manosphere and our issues other than encouraging the women in her efforts whatever those women say. These are the things I was thinking while reading ballist74’s post. Then I read the comments section

Poster evilwhitemalempire, writing at The Society of Phineas, had the following to say:

It might be a good idea, to start blogs, vid channels, etc. disguised as female.

That was not exactly what I was thinking. Nor was i thinking about a man who writes something and his wife posts it under her name. The writing would most likely be transparently male. That defeats the purpose. But there is another variant.

Consider, if a woman who has her head mostly around red pill thinking, and is acting mostly in accordance with the biblical ordering of marriage, and who has a husband who is already Christian red pill and has been steeped long enough to squeeze out white knight vestiges, if that woman was to, in conjunction with her husband, speak into the manosphere, it would be the best of both worlds. it would not be a true Trojan Horse. But it would be decidedly NOT motivated by all the subtle yet nefarious things ballist74 writes about.

It begs a question. How many men who are that well steeped in Christian manosphere ideas have wives who are also well steeped and near completely in agreement? That wife would have to be somewhat motivated by the issues or she’d have never reached her informed conclusion. She must read things. Its not enough she agree with anecdotes her husband shares in between whatever else she is doing. Sorting further, how many have the drive and the nerve to put themselves out there. How many have the skills? The time? On and on.

I thought of Sarah’s Daughter. She meets the tightening criteria I list above. In many ways, very well. I do not know how to describe it briefly. While she hits home runs often in her comments, there is something a bit off in her’s and her husband’s tag team approach. Its as if she is an alpha man by proxy, like she carries the seal of the king and its delegated authority to and over all others, male or female. That’s a whole new set of problems.

What I realized is the exquisite rarity of this hypothetical woman. I cannot think of a single example. I’d be interested to have one pointed out to me. The variant may be wishful thinking.

Advertisements

75 thoughts on “Trojan Horsing Around in the Sphere

  1. I’m not sure how I fit in around here sometimes either, to be honest. I was kind of sad but not entirely surprised when a number of people posting opinions a few months back slammed A Voice for Men as a feminist liberal website, and suggested that it is of little worth to men. In fact I felt reluctant to post much after that. I agree with a lot of their analysis of feminism there, and felt I was keeping abreast of events. I didn’t agree with everything they said, but then I have a toolbox approach to the manosphere. Just as when you buy a toolbox you may never use some of the tools, but buy it because there are enough that you will use, so is my approach.

    For example: I know that Girl Writes What, Cathy Young and Wendy McElroy are all feminists. I also know that they provide good critical analysis of feminism and I take it as such. And ironically, Cathy Young says that AVFM is misogynistic, while Girl Writes What is a frequent contributor.

    Frankly it’s not equal rights that bothers me–it’s that feminism with its religious language and teachings have taught misandry as a means to righteousness that is simply taken for granted. It bothers me a lot that I was taken in by it too until like many men I had a harsh dose of reality. So perhaps I’m being a little wary now–I know that it wasn’t my hard analysis and objectivity that resulted in my views on feminism today; it was becoming one of its casualties.

  2. (Sojournerscribe, GWW is most emphatically not a feminist.)

    Emp,
    This growing phenomenon of women writing and speaking on men’s issues,is something that needs to be addressed; thank you for bringing it up. Nobody knows exactly why, but people LISTEN to women. Perhaps women listen to each other and pressure our men to pay attention. Culture? Biology? Probably both, but in general, women are the ones who complain about the problems and men are the ones who solve the problems. This is not likely to change to any useful degree, and smart men will make use of it even as the reality of it saddens them (appropriately.) Women are the social networkers. We use, share and make judgments upon the knowledge that men discover. We are even the developers and enforcers of nearly every social custom attributed to “Patriarchy.” For better or worse, we listen to each other and we get men to enable the changes we demand.

    I’ve said before and I’ll say again, whether you like us, agree with us, admire us, tolerate us or none of the above, men would do well to give us their knowledge so that we can disseminate it throughout society. A man builds a better mousetrap. His wife makes sure the neighbors are using it by the end of the week.

  3. Driver Suz: read what I said again. She has said HERSELF that she’s a feminist. But hey, don’t take my word for it, ask her. At the same time she strongly criticizes feminist ideology.

  4. Couple of thoughts.

    First of all: Thank you for the kind words. As usual. You’re right that my husband doesn’t think or opine on a lot of the subjects broached in the manosphere. Well, not in the context of marriage. He does occasionally offer his thoughts on the subjects of child custody/child support, etc. Who hasn’t been or isn’t at least related to man struggling through those issues.

    As to your larger point: We get a bad rap most of the time. Sometimes we deserve it, but most of the time we’re misunderstood precisely because of what you mentioned. I’m growing inclined to believe that we need to make ourselves scarce, but I’m not sure that’s the best course either.

    I actually did wade into some of the heavier gender issues on my old blog a few years ago, but I’d be lying if I claimed it was out a selfless concern for the plight of all men. I think those who expect that expect too much.

    I was always sympathetic to men’s issues because of some of the things my father went through, but it was seeing what my BIL and my husband were put through that gave me a front row seat to the magnitude of the injustice. That reality deepened my concern for men in general, but if not for the personal connection, I don’t know that it ever would have happened.

    Yes, I know that makes me a horrible, typical woman, but that’s how women are: relational. When it affects our men, our father, sons, brothers, we take notice and then we see the larger picture.

  5. That seems incoherent; my comment I mean. This is why I shouldn’t comment on the fly, LOL.

    Looking forward to how the convo unfolds and maybe I’ll get a chance to express my thoughts in a way that makes some sense.

  6. When it affects our men, our father, sons, brothers, we take notice and then we see the larger picture.

    If only this were true. How can a woman stand by and watch her own kids suffer in a frivorce, or watch her BFF friverce her husband and destroy the man and the kids, on and on including their own families.

    It is not totally dissimilar to how men come to see red pill truisms. Most men must come through fire. I certainly did, blissfully ignorant of the world unfolding around me until then

  7. You know what, I looked through a couple of transcripts, and I misunderstood something she wrote. It was an article in her blog “Owning Your Shit” titled “No, Seriously, What About teh Man-Hatrz?” and at the end she wrote “I hold a lot of beliefs that could be said to be feminist beliefs. I’ve written articles on women’s issues that were lauded by feminists.” So that clears that up.

  8. Argh. Didn’t mean to push the button. Anyway, so she does NOT claim to be a feminist, but says that she holds beliefs feminists would claim to be theirs. I hold similar beliefs, I think, and so I was expressing some concern about that.

  9. There is a matter for concern; the “moderate” feminists who are now acknowledging men’s issues are making an attempt to control the narrative. Too bad Big Red let the cat out of the bag with her “We’ve got it covered, Fuckface!” tirade. I don’t think the frauds will gain any traction in the manosphere; their threshold for mansplaining logic is too low. The gals who are showing some staying power are smart and sincere. Like the men here, we don’t all agree with each other and we focus on different areas, but we learn from our mistakes and from criticism of our mistakes. WBB is a good example of the type that can’t hack it. She started out saying all the right things and she even got heavily involved in pro-male activism, and perhaps in her heart she believes in men’s equal rights, but she’s a narcissistic attention whore who refuses to accept criticism. When she lost approval from the men, she crashed and burned, and all she has left is to garner negative attention by stirring up trouble.

  10. Great post Empathologism – much to consider!
    One question – the Trojan Horse was completely destructive yes? So if such a combo exists, are you saying it would likewise be damaging from the inside out?

    “How many men who are that well steeped in Christian manosphere ideas have wives who are also well steeped and near completely in agreement? That wife would have to be somewhat motivated by the issues or she’d have never reached her informed conclusion. She must read things. Its not enough she agree with anecdotes her husband shares in between whatever else she is doing. Sorting further, how many have the drive and the nerve to put themselves out there. How many have the skills? The time? ”

    At the risk of coming across as vain – I will put my hand up. The one thing I currently lack is Time.

    Whatever letter of the alphabet fits my wonderful husband – he IS a natural! His interest in the sphere sounds similar to Elspeth’s husband’s. He doesn’t mind me being here so long as I don’t neglect what we already have. I do not gain brownie points for whatever I learn while I am here… my man will not be forced to compliment me on any terms but his own!
    As for me – these issues motivate me to action. Mostly this is because I am a 2nd generation observer of the Truth thanks to my amazing father.

    Several years ago at my sister’s wedding I watched one of my cousins attempt to join the dancing. He’s in his early 30’s, single, and a good man albeit somewhat socially awkward. Wisely he approached a young member of our extended family first and I assumed that once being seen dancing and smiling and generally enjoying being part of it all that he would have little trouble moving up and onwards to eligible fair maidens.
    To my horror and disgust – my young female family member rejected my cousin’s request and consequently shamed him with her look of repulsion at being approached. He was humiliated and it crushed me.
    I quietly spoke to her and lightly explained how her dancing with him would increase his confidence and I encouraged her to change her mind but she wouldn’t have a bar of it.
    Meanwhile my cousin had soldiered on asking another of our young cousins for the dance. She too rejected him and slunk away.
    Again I quietly encouraged her to accept the dance. She dully said she didn’t feel like it.
    ONE freaking dance with a family member and they wouldn’t even do it!!!
    Had they accepted him, he’d have gained confidence. That they rejected him meant he gave up.

    That’s an example of why I’m motivated. I notice things and I dislike what I see.

  11. If only this were true. How can a woman stand by and watch her own kids suffer in a frivorce, or watch her BFF friverce her husband and destroy the man and the kids, on and on including their own families.

    Well clearly I’m referring to women who are concerned about something or someone greater than themselves. Not the narcissists. (Yes, I know they are the majority).

    That said, I see your point.

  12. Okay, I think I know where the breakdown is. It’s the difference between those women who believe in duty and those who believe only our ultimate happiness is what matters.

    Duty gets a bad rap these days. No one wants to do something out of obligation and no one wants anyone to do anything for them out of obligation. Everyone wants to feel the warm fuzzies. Women are the worst about this, as we all know. We tend to worship at the altar of our feelings, even mistaking our emotional compass for the Holy Spirit.

    When you recognize that there can be great joy and satisfaction in duty, and you are committed to doing what you’ve promised, and are not as distracted by your fickle feelings, the plight of those around you can move you to see injustice on a larger scale.

    This is what I think characterizes the women who comment or visit the manosphere.

  13. Sojourn:

    Know you as long as i have, I get what you are saying completely. If you notice I made a post about Elam being on 20/20 and I stand by the fact that only if I make perfect enemy of good can that be a totally bad thing. I do not read there more than once every few months and Ive explained why. More about old hostility to Christians and a decidedly left tilt feel to it.

    I cannot watch GWW anymore. I was early taken in by her bold plain spoken statements. I cannot reconcile her any more than, in the Christian arena I can reconcile Sarah’s Daughter. I also cannot celebrate the whole HUMAN rights thing. Its unfortunate, but the language of inclusion is usually a slippery slope. They have a voice for MEN. The skew of problems is too great to even unintentionally dilute their mission.

  14. Re duty…

    This is what I think characterizes the women who comment or visit the manosphere.

    It may well be, but in some cases we get more than that, more-not in a good way. If duty IS the agenda, that’s great. if duty is something else, and the possibilities are endless, a fad, a faux, a boast, a tool, etc. then its a problem.

    If you consider the typical models of duty, soldiers, they do not talk about it unless they themselves become leaders and need it to motivate their subordinates. You do a good job of not promoting yourself while expressing the duty aspect

  15. At the risk of coming across as vain – I will put my hand up. The one thing I currently lack is Time.

    Perhaps I failed to convey where I meant to go with the thought. Yes you meet the criteria listed, and you make good posts. I was proposing a woman who in detailed collaboration with her husband, she would be the ultimate effective female blogger in the sphere

  16. The whole MRA is wrestling with this. AVfM started this off when they picked up the MGTOW hating “Wooly Bumblebee”. I see women taking up all the space is part of the problem, not part of many solutions. What we end up doing is deferring to them because they can carry the message? That stinks of “can’t beat them? join them”. I don’t mind seeing women commenting respectfully in male spaces but that is about the extent of it. Anything beyond that seems like an abdication of our agency, bowing before what the dominant feminist culture demands.

  17. I also cannot celebrate the whole HUMAN rights thing. Its unfortunate, but the language of inclusion is usually a slippery slope.

    AVfM seems like nothing more to me than a progressive tendril into the MRA.

  18. I don’t mind seeing women commenting respectfully in male spaces but that is about the extent of it. Anything beyond that seems like an abdication of our agency, bowing before what the dominant feminist culture demands.

    Yes, IAL. I completely agree.

  19. IAL, you can resent and/or ignore the fact that women DO “carry the message,” but you can’t stop it from being a fact. Or you can give us a better message to carry, than the one feminism has given us. Your choice.

  20. In this case the medium is very much the message. Having you lead us around by the nose isn’t going to happen. Women in Christ speak loudest by their submission, those that speak more loudly in other ways only prove that they are not in Christ. The first thing that the world (Satan) attacked in the family was the submission of the woman. To take a line from “War Games”: “the only winning move is not to play the game”.

    If women act submissively towards their husbands and fathers as they are commanded in the Bible THAT medium is also the message.

    The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
    (Tit 2:3-5)

    There is your message, take it or leave it.

  21. Emp, we are talking about (and fighting against) an ideology that violates the human rights of half the population for the illusory “benefit” of the other half. How can we address this without being “inclusive?” As a devoutly Biblical Christian male, you are a minority reviled by feminism, secularism and most of Christianity. You could ignore that reality but you don’t – you write about it (which is a form of activism) and you will probably live the rest of your life as a martyr of sorts. Will you go to your death meekly, having thoroughly analyzed and cataloged your enemy, or will you go down fighting with every weapon you can reach, so maybe your sons and grandsons will have a weakened enemy to fight?

    I don’t have a problem with “thinkers;” their leadership and influence is absolutely necessary, but I hope you are not turning up your nose at the pragmatists who roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty, occasionally engaging in distasteful limited alliances for the benefit of our children and yours. Your allies do not have to share all of your beliefs in order to be your allies. Indeed if they did share your beliefs they would be your tribe instead of your allies. As an activist I can ally myself with those who share some of my beliefs, without identifying as a member of their tribe. This is not a sacrifice of my principles, it is a willingness to band together temporarily in order to fight a massive enemy. I don’t expect victory in my lifetime, but perhaps my son can experience a taste of it in his.

  22. IAL, to silence women will require removing children from our influence. That’s not going to happen, and it’s not supposed to happen. Women leading men around by the nose is only a part of the problem; we are teaching our children and each other to do the same, because women carry the message. Women always have and always will carry the message. What needs to change is the message being carried.
    A woman who is submissive to her husband and to God, must be strong and vocal in her submission, and she must be willing to teach it to her children and her peers *assertively,* or her message will be entirely drowned out. Submission is not inertia, nor is it silence. A truly submissive wife has become one with her husband. She speaks with his voice because his voice is now hers. A Biblical marriage is not two people within a contract. It is an entity in and of itself, bigger than either person could ever become. That doesn’t make it an “equal partnership,” because someone must be the head of the entity, but without a wife the husband is the head of nothing.

    Feminism has done a phenomenal job of redefining marital submission as slavery – two individuals, one with will and one without.

  23. Actually it is not the women in the manosphere who are themselves the problem–it is the men’s REGARD for them that is the problem. There’s a huge difference between respecting Girl Writes What, for instance, for her way of dissecting issues within feminism and lionizing her because ‘only a woman can address this’–which is something I doubt she wants, btw. I see her as just doing her bit for fairness–fair enough.

    But really, I was thinking about this really hard–after re-reading the novel (Disclosure) by Michael Crichton about corporate intrigue and changes as a result of increasing numbers of women executives. I don’t know if anyone has read it, so warning: spoilers follow.

    It’s a story from the .com era’s boom about a married division manager at a software corporation that is accused of sexual harassment against his immediate superior, a woman called Meredith Johnson, who in fact put the moves on him. n the story, the main problem in a sense only partly comes from Meredith Johnson. It also comes from her backer, Bob Garvin, the CEO and principal shareholder, who is her mentor and sees her as a replacement for his dead daughter. He honestly believes he is being a champion–in fact he should be held up as an iconic White Knight in fiction. Even after he is told that she has several times harassed other employees (with the charges generally dropped or not even brought up), he refuses to believe it. He honestly believes that even though it is proven to the satisfaction of the rest of the Board, the executives, etc, that Meredith Johnson tried to cut corners with the result that they were putting out a product that was inherently faulty in order to make herself look efficient. (ironically) So in other words, this man sees himself as a champion for women and refuses to believe people when they are accused of wrongdoing.

    I’d love to do a further analysis of this novel, which I found very interesting, but not now. My point is that in a sense here the enemy can very often be us. Chivalry is so ingrained in our culture that we barely recognize when we are doing it. Feminism has made very good use of this even as its proponents denounce it.

  24. You know Sojourner, there was a movie based on that book.

    I didn’t know there was a book, LOL, but I recognized the novel plot from your comment because saw the film starring Demi Moore and Michael Douglas way back when.

  25. driversuz, a pragmatist would realize that the only weapon that worked for the Godly woman was removed from her by the feminist. It should not be a shock to you that the world is lost and it always has been. Pragmatically we need to preach the Gospel with our wives by our side and not stand on the enemies ground using his weapons as if that were possible. Putting any one person out front is doing just that, the rebellion, the solipsism, the narcissism is right there under the surface with all of us, how much more for a woman that is not under her covering? That is ALREADY in rebellion?

    I could think of about a dozen lines from “Lord of the Rings” about now.

  26. Yes, the men’s regard for compassionate women is almost frightening. The new “Honey Badgers” show at AVfM Radio (GWW, Typhon Blue and Della Burton) has taken off like wildfire; apparently men are simply starved for women who “get it.” Men are as taken with female displays of compassion/respect for them, as most women are with PUAs’ displays of “dominance.” Unfortunately most of us are able and willing to be deceived. Critical thinkers must continue to call out both the deceivers and the deceived. But men will always flock to women who show them respect, so the danger of pedestalization is always present – Chivalry (which is deeply rooted in human nature) is how men have been trained to compete for women’s respect.

  27. GWW is an evo-psych with a foul mouth, Typhon Blue is much worse (or at the very least pretends at it). I wouldn’t take either of those women home to my parents if I were not already married and I do appreciate the female perspective in very small doses I would have a hard time recommending them to anyone. They rarely have anything positive to say about traditionalists and will cut a guy like Chapin or Rocking Mr. E off as fast as they would a radfem.

  28. I like Girl Writes What’s stuff. I have no beef with it. I don’t mind some salty language. What I find striking though is how rare a level headed response is. I mean look at the vehement responses about “Nice Guys”. Most men regard “Nice Guys” as lacking in a bit of confidence here and there, needing to look more to having their own sense of integrity about who fits into THEIR lives than about pleasing others all the time. Most men get that these men don’t just want sex, they want relationships with women that work, and are simply going about it in an ineffective way. But generally feminists actually lead the cry against them, saying nonsense like “they’re not really ‘nice’ because they expect to get something out of it.” That’s an oddly liberal approach by the way–the idea that expecting anything in the way of a reward or hoping for it somehow makes you corrupt. If a child were taught that he would likely receive scorn and contempt for being polite and having gratitude, why would he behave that way?

    Anyway, I think this is an example that comes up because I can think of very few women who have publicly said that they understand what men have tried to explain about Nice Guys–that they don’t feel entitled to sex but are trying to understand how to court women. That dance example above is a good example of how the bar has been not simply raised but is in no fixed position. So when very few women respond understandingly, a woman who does can seem like water in the desert.

    My concern about this is that it can lead to thinking that women can change their perspective. I’m really dubious about this. I think that GWW is actually a warning–in fact she has honestly said that socially we have a predilection for preferring women over men. That means that as long as it is profitable for women to support feminism, they will, which means that women like GWW will continue to be rare.

    So to me that means that while what she SAYS is important, that SHE is saying it should not give us hope for a better future where women are persuaded by reason to understand men’s lives. I think that it demonstrates that it takes a Red Pill moment for women–and we know that is less likely to happen.

  29. Most women definitely need more than reason to persuade them, because the predilection for preferring women over men is both social and biological. And a good start would be to reverse the laws and policies that make it profitable. That’s why I do the work I do.

    My complaint against TradCons is that feminists rely on the kindness and chivalry of traditional men (liberal men too, but they’re more obvious about it with liberals.) Traditionalists want female privilege in combination with male respect, which is the basis for our entire civilization, but that contract has been broken. Men still keep fulfilling their half, TradCons and liberals alike (although liberal men tend to believe they’re not worthy of respect.)

    As long as feminism maintains political power, it will take full advantage of male goodness. Every time a traditionalist stands up and tells men what their duty is, feminism does a little fist-pump and quietly whispers, “Yessss!” Every time a liberal man stands up and tells men what there duty is, feminism sneers and says, “Naturally, you cretin. Duh. Now polish my shoes.”

  30. The trouble is that the strongest generally movement is actually the one that refuses to engage women where it will not benefit men or society generally. However that runs contrary to all our training.

    I took part in a thread on the Christian forums about who should pay for a date, and pointed out very politely that if men and women were equals that both parties should pay for dates since that is what they’d be doing when married. Similar to when the one woman was telling me to man up around here and that if I didn’t I was just a feminist, and I said “When you promise you’ll give up the right to vote and control your own money, talk to me about feminism then and I’ll listen.” No response.

    Hoist with their own petard.

  31. Huh. a Churcian woman who looks down her nose at feminists but wants to keep the gifts feminism has heaped at her feet. Go figure. Yes, sadly feminism appeals to our very nature, and the most effective way to fight it goes against everything “good” – all of the instincts and traditions that have contributed to our survival.

  32. Empath:
    The bottom line here is that women’s main contribution to the men’s movement has been causing it to happen. They need to stop trolling around the Manosphere, telling men what we should think and believe; get off their own entitled asses and DO something about reforming their own gender. Honestly, I never hear much from ANY of the femRAs (with a few exceptions) other than ‘Feminism with a Smiling Face’ and ‘Equal Injustice for All’.

  33. Eric, thanks for linking that!
    Antigones – counter revolution – “Real women, dignified, smiling, graceful.”
    How lovely….sigh….

  34. Good point Eric. Why should Godly women look to carry men’s messages, they don’t have a message of their own? Feminism is destroying society and you don’t have to be an MRA or a male to have a dog in that fight.

  35. Eric, Truly godly women look to wise men for the RIGHT message. In the end, men’s message is women’s message. What benefits men, benefits women. It’s why I spend more time on activism than on analyzing. I do it for my son and I do it for myself (though ATM I’m still on a leave of absence.)

    Ignore the women who tell you what to think. Pay a bit of attention to the ones who care what YOU think; they may not agree with you but if it has occurred to them that you have thoughts worthy of consideration, they may have potential.

  36. Are there arny femRAs besides those at A Voice for Men? I’m not familiar with any.

    As for women “trolling around the sphere”, I didn’t know there was a sphere until a couple of them came to the door of my old house. I am very careful about on whose blog I will comment however, and the list is growing more narrow every day.

    I agree that women need to avoid the temptation to carry the message on behalf of men, which is why I stick to admonishing and encouraging women.

  37. Suz
    Will you go to your death meekly, having thoroughly analyzed and cataloged your enemy, or will you go down fighting with every weapon you can reach

    This is repetitious for those who know me, but my scope of activism (I dislike the word because it has been co-opted by liberals) is far more than writing. If a writer has an very widely read blog, like Dalrock, one can call the blog activism. If I am writing here and doing nothing else, my writing would be rightly called whining. I am not a whiner.

    My arena is the church, not the laws. I have winnowed my way into meetings with many mega church pastors, ones that are hard to get a meeting with. I have tirelessly debated them on the churches role in evangelical feminism, and have had lengthy exchanges with countless others by email regarding same. When I am attending a church, even as a visitor, I find ways to make my points. Its non stop. I do it at work, at recreation, at children’s functions where other parents are, etc. I even do it incorporated into what I say when I share the gospel, incorporated in the sense that I describe how fallen we are and gender order in the church as a symptom.

    A big machine like AVFM is not the exclusive realm of activism.

  38. Sojourn

    Actually it is not the women in the manosphere who are themselves the problem–it is the men’s REGARD for them that is the problem

    Correct, that is the lions share of the problem. There are some of the women who are a problem in and of themselves, but this tendency to hold them all high applies to all the women who post in agreeable language

    suz

    But men will always flock to women who show them respect, so the danger of pedestalization is always present – Chivalry (which is deeply rooted in human nature) is how men have been trained to compete for women’s respect.

    Yes, this is what I termed “the lift”. Its the male desire for female approval.

  39. Or you can give us a better message to carry, than the one feminism has given us. Your choice.

    This was the point. But it must happen in the home, with married couples. I stand by that. A woman with her husband’s leadership collaboratively writing/speaking into manosphere issues is the only scenario I can imagine that could not lead to problems. And even that carries risk, all because of whats been said, other men will highly regard the woman.

    But when you take a woman and put her on a team or in a group of activists, it necessarily morphs the whole group. If you get two women, you get conflict between them, if you get three, you will get team woman and feminism.

    Suz makes my point when she writes:

    we are talking about (and fighting against) an ideology that violates the human rights of half the population for the illusory “benefit” of the other half. How can we address this without being “inclusive?”

    That comment makes no logical sense. One group is taking benefit from another, by fiat, by social norm, by law, by decree, by peer pressure, whatever. Group A exploits Group B. To address the exploitation you address that list of modes, you lift the exploited and you press down on the exploiters …figuratively. It makes no sense to call that inclusive activism, or to use a generic term like “Human” so that the exploiting group doesn’t feel left out.

    It comes across like tolerance and acceptance driven nomenclature. It softens the supposed mission of an ostensible mens rights group. You state that half the population has its rights violated. Stop there, and name your group.

  40. Eric, Truly godly women look to wise men for the RIGHT message. In the end, men’s message is women’s message. What benefits men, benefits women. It’s why I spend more time on activism than on analyzing. I do it for my son and I do it for myself (though ATM I’m still on a leave of absence.)

    Ignore the women who tell you what to think. Pay a bit of attention to the ones who care what YOU think; they may not agree with you but if it has occurred to them that you have thoughts worthy of consideration, they may have potential

    This is good advice.

  41. ” You state that half the population has its rights violated. Stop there, and name your group.”

    How do you stop the other half of the population from exploiting them without involving that half? Especially when most of them don’t know they are being exploitative? There is nothing extraordinary about women like me, I’m a person of conscience and I’m a woman. There are millions of such women who, like me, would take pains not to exploit men if they knew that they were doing so. Excluding such women because of their natural inclination toward sympathy for women, is unproductive – as is excluding men because of THEIR natural inclination toward sympathy for women. The need to protect the organ that gestates future generations, is not a “gendered” trait; we all have it. Team Woman would be very weak if men didn’t support and enable it, i.e. if men were indeed the oppressors of women feminists claim them to be.

    Men and women were not opponents before feminism invaded our culture. We were allies and partners. Is your goal to perpetuate the feminist frame or to eradicate it?

  42. @ Suz:

    I don’t know that the guys here are saying that women aren’t valuable as allies. I think the question here is whether it’s appropriate for women to be out front as standard bearers rather than in more supportive roles.

  43. How do you stop the other half of the population from exploiting them without involving that half?

    Involving them? What does that actually mean? It could mean convincing them they are exploiting mens rights, it could mean coming full frontal against the women who willfully exploit men’s rights, it could mean working through the institutions that afford the power (laws) that enable the exploitation of men’s rights. Those and many more iterations “involve” women, but they are not about womens rights, they are about mens rights. What does the “human” in MHRA mean? If it means that the rights being advocated for men are rights that all humans should have, thats a bit redundant or something. Its in there for placation. If it means advocating for the rights of all humans, that is dilution. In either case, even if unintentional it changes the perception of the whole effort, and makes it more approachable, more friendly, more tolerant and accepting. There are obvious consequences. There is nothing innately wrong with those things. But overt inclusion in such a manner seems like trying too hard to seem nonthreatening.

  44. Elspeth, and, its even more than just having women out front. its having women sitting round the figurative table. The tendencies as you often admit suz has as well, for men to pander to women, and for women to run with it are still there, always, in every man and woman. The ONLY way to ensure that dynamic is killed is to place extreme limits on the involvement of women.

    The converse would not hold true. Women’s advocacy when it is ever germane and virtuous would suffer from a lack of men’s involvement.

    Men indeed are guilty of allowing things to be as they are. Putting us in teams with women just plays on the same issues that got us here in the first place. Its a problem for men and women to have women involved.

  45. Bringing up GWW as an example–I don’t think she’s ever proposed herself as anything other than a person weighing in her opinions. In fact few of these women are–so it’s important that we take it as such. A toolbox approach is best with online philosophizing anyway. Is what was said useful or relevant? Was it helpful?

    By this means, incidentally, we’d also be doing far better than feminism, which has a tendency to bite the feeding hand.

    Something else: an ally is someone who benefits you even as you benefit them. The gay movement and the feminist movement have twisted the meaning so that it means “You support us, don’t expect thanks for doing the right thing. We’ve discussed this a lot but I think it could be summed up as being the same as thanking someone for showing up with some extra drywall while you’re fixing your house. You thank them and get on with it.

  46. “But overt inclusion in such a manner seems like trying too hard to seem nonthreatening.”

    Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from AVfM, which you discuss quite freely while admitting you rarely read it. Did you happen to read the discussion on the heavily demonized “H,” the explanation from the very people who chose to include the “H?” The intent was not at all to seem nonthreatening. It was to highlight the brazen bigotry and hypocrisy of feminism, by showing that we are not the mirror image of that bigotry. We are showing the world what these con artists REALLY mean when they promote “Women’s Rights” as “Human Rights” – that they sincerely believe men to be less than human.

    Sure, we believe that if some human have “natural” rights, then all humans have them. Women shouldn’t have more rights than men, men shouldn’t have more rights than women. What we refuse to “include” is unearned privilege, awarded as some sort of reparations for imagined past transgressions.

    But that’s not the point of the “H.” The point is to steal our opponent’s ball and throw it back at her so fast and so hard, she won’t be able to dodge it. Judging by the responses we get from some of the world’s most prominent feminists (along with their naive lackeys) that sucker kinda stings when it hits.

    This is where the “H” took root:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/mens-rights-are-not-human-rights-apparently/

    How “nonthreatening” is it to take the battle into the enemy’s own most sacred territory and fight that enemy with its own meticulously sharpened weapons? This is one of the primary ideas behind FTSU – no more defensive tactics. We play offense now. Loudly. And AVfM’s Alexa ranking, not to mention 20/20’s upcoming (likely) crucifixion of Paul, suggests that people actually hear what we’re saying, whether they like it or not.

    You’re welcome.

  47. Elspeth, when talking about what men want and need, yes women need to shut up and listen. When we’re talking about rights and responsibilities though, it all needs to be out in the open, and yes, inclusive. It was women sneaking around behind closed doors in order to manipulate men into giving up their rights, that got us into the trouble we’re in now. That’s why feminists are terrified of the men’s movement – they think men are going to do the same thing, and they’ve got nearly everyone believing them.

  48. No, I saw inclusion of the “H” as a shot across the bow of traditional men. The rhetoric coming out of John the Other in particular was very hostile towards Godly men, I unsubscribed from both his and Typhon’s channel when the “H” became an issue. If they want to go of on an egalitarian epic they are more than welcome to I think it looks like the feminist playbook inverted. I have no use for that and I think men are going to be taken for the same victim ride that women were taken on if they go along with it. They scorn complemetarianism in practice while acknowledging the fact that there are reasons for traditional Western society.

    One need look no further than the way they glommed onto Kristina Hansen (Wooly Bumblebee) over at AVfM to see what pitfalls lay in store by bringing in egalitarian female “leaders”. She wasn’t there for long before she started bashing MGTOWs. Yeah, I get enough of that action from the types of egalitarians we see in Churchianity (like CF), I don’t need to support a secular version.

  49. There is something about the “H” that has a strong suggestion of the ends justifying the means and that for some reason or another we have to “win” by engaging the enemy on his field. No. We. Don’t. We don’t have to win debates, we don’t have to win popular opinion, we don’t have to convince a majority of the mob to do things “our” way, we do not have to enlist the help of women in order to engage with society. We don’t have to ape secular humanists. We’re supposed to have something better. We have the Holy Spirit and we have the Gospel. If we operate under those properly we are a new creature. If we preach and evangelize a pure unadulterated (by feminism) Gospel under the direction of the Holy Spirit we will convert people and THEY will be new creatures. We can exhort fellow believers to sweep the leaven of feminism from their spiritual houses, but this is not through secular humanist arguments, it’s by an unadulterated an holy walk.

    I’m not giving up on the great commission to start crusading for “human rights”. What rights might those be? To take up my cross daily and die?

    And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
    (Luk 9:23-25)

    I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
    (1Co 15:31)

  50. I grew up with a father who says the U.N stands for Ultimately Nasty.

    Here’s something he wrote last year:

    When

    When democracy seems to be breaking out everywhere, on the street and in the home;
    When Human Rights have become a common standard for all human interaction;
    When religions begin to join together and put aside their differences;
    When cultures merge and the distinctions become unimportant;
    When the notion of a chosen race has finally been consigned to the rubbish bin of history;
    When gender is no longer a basis for discrimination and women assume significant positions of power and authority;
    When political parties find unity on sensitive moral issues;
    When children are no longer smacked for correction but are given the same status as adults;
    When marriage is no longer the exclusive preserve of a male/female pairing;
    When the UN is at last given the power and means to fulfill its mandate;
    When finally it seems that at last peace is coming to the middle-east;
    When all these things happen, know this; ……… the prophesied end of the age is very near and the predicted terror is almost at the door.

    “When they say “peace and security” then shall come sudden destruction…………… and they shall not escape”.
    1 Thessalonians ch.5 v6

    Read more: http://wisedoves.webnode.com/

    His message is one of importance and all I am is a strong supporter.
    This all gets tricky cos my opinion is of no consequence at all, but I am passionate about Reclaiming the Patriarchy.
    I recognise that I don’t have the message. But I do want to be the messenger. Is this wrong?

    Sometimes dad sends me to women’s meetings where he can’t go to be a thorn in their side. Sometimes I sing harmony for what I believe are prophetic songs that he has written. Sometimes I speak to people in church, to women in my home, to young maidens at girls camps where I’ve been asked to teach.
    But the message is always approved by my father.
    I was asked to speak on Submission at a homeschooling mother’s retreat last year and my husband was glad for me to share but he didn’t want to hear the details (it’s pretty much unspoken in this household – otherwise the temptation is ‘Look at that husband, did you notice how sweetly I submitted there?! why yes Hannah I really am so lucky aren’t I? = pride)
    My father approved my message and added a word from him for me to share.
    I’ve created a blog called ‘Reclaiming Patriarchy’ that’s for my father when he’s ready. I’ve created another blog called ‘The Weaker Vessel’ that has a couple of dozen unpublished drafts that perhaps will remain left unsaid.

    Contentment is as a wife and mother. Wanting to share that wisdom is like a physical drive.

    As an anti-feminist female it is supremely difficult to find my place.

  51. John’s libertarian agenda is the problem? All this time I thought it was Dean’s liberal agenda. Huh.

  52. They claim to be libertarian, I don’t know. I prefer Juris Naturalist myself, and they are not much like me. I think their first affiliation in secular humanist and that is a distinction that I hope to never fail to see.

  53. I agree with what your dad wrote. I suspect though that the “unity, conformity, multicultural, tolerance” bomb is intended to go off and that the spirit of anti-Christ is going to put on flesh in the ashes of that tragedy. We’re getting quite close.

  54. Hannah:
    Thanks—I found that link on Fidelbogen’s blog a couple of months ago and have been spreading it around. I think it’s highly instructive: unlike a lot of American ‘red pill’ women; nobody has to instruct these French girls on ‘how to be real women’—they simply ARE real women and act accordingly. Also, too notice many of the things they say in response to FEMEN are things that rarely, if ever, discussed by American femRAs—the complimentary nature gender of gender differences, for example.

  55. Suz:
    I really have nothing against activism per se, but as you noted: “I do it for myself and for my son.” What I’ve noticed with the whole MHRM approach to activism is that—though probably well-meaning, it has that whole motherly element of ‘protection’ to it. It tends not to empower men so much as to shield them and make them into a victim class in their own right.

    For example, it may thought beneficial to have more equitable divorce laws that don’t discriminate against men—but better still would be to abolish no-fault divorce. It may be more equitable to end disproportional punishments in cases of violence or abuse: it would be better though to eliminate sex as an aggravating factor in all crimes.

    Also, as Eivind Berge has pointed out, there’s a strong element of sex-negativity behind extending human rights to men (as defined by women). For example good activism would be to abolish IMBRA and have more reasonable AOC laws. But things like this are never discussed.

  56. I just want to say that the whole “red pill women” thing? It leaves me cold. I think standing on the side of truth is good enough.

    When we’re talking about rights and responsibilities though, it all needs to be out in the open, and yes, inclusive.

    I agree with the statement up until the words “and yes, inclusive”. There is a time when people need to fight their own battles and make their own way. Otherwise you get what we have with respect to so many other “rights” movements: victims, oppressors, and laws to even out that which can not be made even.

    What’s more is that I am not an egalitarian, but a complementarian. That alone gives me pause with putting women out front a movement of justice for men.

  57. Actually it is not the women in the manosphere who are themselves the problem–it is the men’s REGARD for them that is the problem.

    Yes, this is it.

    @Driver Suz

    You are totally right about women being the message bearers, and the importance they have in passing that on to other women and to children, and even men. Instruction to the former two, and matters for consideration to the last. This is why gossip, idle talk, and meaningless contention are the chief sins of women–it’s a perversion of what they were designed to do.

    Prayer is an inherently feminine and good thing to do.

  58. @Hannah

    ONE freaking dance with a family member and they wouldn’t even do it!!!
    Had they accepted him, he’d have gained confidence. That they rejected him meant he gave up.

    That’s an example of why I’m motivated. I notice things and I dislike what I see.

    What I want to know is: Did you dance with him?

  59. Dang, if my hit-o-meter could record THOSE views, now you’ve gone and done it.

    We are warned to be circumspect. As wise as serpents. It’s good to remember that big Brother is watching AND that we can be hidden in Christ.

  60. Cane Caldo – good question, I sure would have but in this particular instance I was holding my sleeping toddler, dancing with my husband and young son whilst being 9months + 2 days pregnant 🙂

    That being said, if he’d asked me to dance I would have said yes, so perhaps I could have handled the whole thing better by passing baby to his papa and then asking my cousin to dance. doh.

    Should this same situation occur again though…. how would one rescue the rejected without appearing too obvious? The reason I chatted quietly to the two girls was because my cousin had actually CHOSEN them so they could then approach him with a changed mind without too much awkwardness. If I asked my cousin to dance instead would it embarrass him?

  61. My last comment disappeared. TL/DR: Every success in my arena is a small step toward every man having more control over his life.

  62. Elspeth, in spite of different philosophies, or perhaps because of different philosophies, “equal treatment under the law” is a worthy standard. It’s never going to be perfect, but as a standard it allows for individuals to live according to their individual philosophies. The crybaby victims will always be among us, but legal equality would rightly absolve the rest of us of the mandatory responsibility to pander to their complaints. That’s it what I mean by “inclusive,” because it includes everybody equally, with no exemptions for “victim” classes. Any such group would not be allowed to claim “rights” that nobody else has.

    Modern liberalism has redefined “equality” to mean either “equal outcomes” or “sameness.” When this nation was founded, it was neither. It was equal rights to equal protection under the law, and that’s the inclusive equality I strive for; it’s the only “official” way for you and I to choose how we live our lives and spend our resources. Without it, someone else (via the government) will always claim the “right” to dictate our duties.

  63. @ Suz:

    I agree with you 100% on the issue of equal treatment under the law.

    It’s the insistence on equality of outcomes characteristic of leftist philosophy, that disturbs me, and it seems that a lot of the men here feel that AVfM is veering hard left at breakneck speed.

  64. Elspeth, when they categorically mock believers as “white knights” and “manginas” I think that polite discourse is at an end. I don’t see much room for participation when they are sneering at complementarians as much as they are at feminist (and in fact lumping us together). Equality, “human rights” to them means egalitarianism, period. They don’t have the first foggy concept what equality in Christ means. They don’t seem to care to get one either.

    AVfM is humans attempting to fix human problems. We don’t have to look any farther than the Cross to see how far that got us.

  65. @Hannah

    Should this same situation occur again though…. how would one rescue the rejected without appearing too obvious? The reason I chatted quietly to the two girls was because my cousin had actually CHOSEN them so they could then approach him with a changed mind without too much awkwardness. If I asked my cousin to dance instead would it embarrass him?

    You happily ask him to dance. It won’t do any good if you go over trying to be sympathetic (“Awww. I’ll dance with you if you want.”) Enthusiasm is called for. (“I would love to dance with you. Will you do me the honor?”) He may still throw a pity party and demur, but if not you have shown that he has value, and a good time can be had with him. If he does say no, I’d follow up with something like, “Oh man, getting rejected is the worst!” At least a laugh can be rescued from the affair.

    All the better if it shames the cousins a bit. It’s not like he asked them for a kiss.

  66. Pingback: I Never Thought I Would Die | The Society of Phineas

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