Lydia McGrew rants….analytically……she rants

Lydia McGrew. Never heard of her until this week. Followed a link from Dalrock’s and saw her home page. Seemed a faux academic. Read some of her posts and thought, OK, some depth, some knowledge, some wisdom, not too bad. Even the aesthetics of her blog are geared to present an academic facade to the writing. Her condescension leaves the taste of bile, which I’ve been lacking as I am lacking a gall bladder. I didn’t miss it.

Then I read her post, “A Rant Against the Men’s Rights Attitude”. The facade weakened. So, I read the comments. It weakened further. Then I commented, she kept it in moderation but misrepresented my words in comments of her own, creating low rhetorical fruit she could use to rebut me.

Now the facade has crumbled. Pieces of it can be seen appearing, by hour, as she writes comments to herself, the blog equivalent of fingers in ears yelling lalalalalala. I told her that it was unlikely she would ever yield an inch. That she is the fish not grasping the notion that it is soaking wet.

Its nothing new, nothing to see, move on along. Or, read on as I parse her feeble attempt at making a low effort at shaming seem like true point-counterpoint discourse, her one sided debate serving to show that forensics really is not what they are getting at in CSI shows.

Lydia says men she runs into cite that 80% of divorces are initiated by women for frivolous reasons. I list the specific number, 80%, because later she adds points to her score when i make the case that in reality the number is more like 67% and has been backed by some decent studies. I should have known better than to wade in with her when she takes her first mirthful stab at rebutting the claim:

The idea seems to be that pretty much all women have within them an Inner Buffy who is just waiting for the opportunity to dump her husband one day in fit of hormone-driven pique because he fails to put his socks in the hamper. And then ruin his life, ruin the children’s lives, break up his relationship with his children, etc.

No Lydia, that is not what the idea seems to be, unless like you, one wishes to frame a straw man argument that is easy to knock down. Do you really think no one has tried the “socks in the hamper” before? The actual claim is regarding what reasons are NOT present for these divorces. Physical infidelity, physical abuse, and addiction are missing from the 67%. It says nothing about silliness like socks or toilet seats.

It shouldn’t really be too hard to realize that a man can leave his wife for another woman and that his wife may then formally initiate the divorce! In our current no-fault divorce culture, it is quite easy for an erring spouse of either sex to initiate a marital breakup and then put psychological pressure on the other spouse to agree to the subsequent divorce. If the other spouse happens to be the one to file the papers, that doesn’t automatically mean the other spouse is the guilty party in the marital breakup. There are, of course, other scenarios as well. In how many of those 80% of cases was the husband using, and unable or unwilling to stop using, p*rn, perhaps even the type which made the wife fear for her own safety and that of her children? How about severe and uncontrolled substance abuse?

I’d like to say this argument is predictable, but usually women refuting divorce statistics do not get this far. But many do, and Lydia here makes the assumption that the men citing the statistics need to be schooled in this most elementary level of analysis. The men citing these are often the sausage that has emerged from the family court grinder, and most of them tend to go OCD studying the law and its iterations and outcomes. They KNOW that what she is saying is true, and likely asked the same question when they began to read that women file most no-fault divorces. I know I certainly did. I, like Lydia, did not want to, no….refused to accept that the notion men are destroying families is worth further examination. I was doggedly opposed to defense of men, and more so to holding women at all to account for familial destruction. having been the product of divorce, several times, as a child, and having witnessed severe physical abuse by men of my mother, I was wrapped tight and comfortable in the belief set Lydia espouses. A crowbar would not separate me from those views.

So I wrote her a comment explaining that there is a state sponsored study that shows what I claim. She accused me of using stats cooked up in the manosphere. I explained that, no, mine were independent and if anything were biased to not show what they ultimately did show. I then tried to explain that conjecture about the number crunching, thereafter, could ONLY buttress the claims, even if by adding just one more case. That by design, conjecture could not unwind the known numbers, it could only support them. She misunderstood this as well and in a comment said::

This implies that you believe that those doing the study were _not_ really able to get at a clear knowledge of what faults were causes lying behind the divorces. Your bias shows in that you state that we should assume and “add on top” hidden female-fault divorces but that you do not see (even, apparently, after I pointed it out once) that if this is a possibility, so too are hidden male-fault divorces. If, for example, some divorces filed apparently frivolously by men were filed at the request of their wives (an example you gave), then why should we not guess that there were some divorces filed apparently frivolously by women at the request of their husbands?

I really do not know how to make this any clearer.

[ ]

Also to point out, again, your amusing and strange double standard regarding the alleged thorough knowledge of your cited researchers and possible hidden cases of (only???) female fault. But if you don’t understand that yet, there’s nothing further I can do


[emphasis of condescension mine]


Lydia. It is clear. Its just wrong. You need to step down from your high horse and realize that other people can think and reason as well or better than you. That other people have been steeped in this, for real, and considered it from every possible angle. And that other people can be smart. To wade into a topic for the first time with nothing but simplistic emotional reactions and then condescend to someone offering thoughtful arguments as if you have it all figured out is bad form. In fact, when you say:

On the other hand, I have a very *strong* impression that the manosphere is bad for a person’s (some participants are women as well) ability to think clearly, as well as for a person’s character and ability to perceive the world. I most solemnly wish to have nothing to do with it, considering it, quite literally, mind poison.

You describe your own thinking.

You deride my challenge to “conventional wisdom” and misquote me by calling it “common wisdom”. these two things are very different as read. Since you chose to take my 13% “error”, I used 67% vs your 80%, I have to point out that you misquoted me, again. You use a poor example. I state that I am challenging conventional wisdom and that conventional wisdom is lazy thinking and the hardest to get round. You then turn that around and say that I have taken exception to feminist claims that men and women are the same, and you then choose for me my reason for doing it. You say I base my refutation on years of observations, etc., and ask what is that if not common wisdom, closing your thought with more condescension, goose, gander, etc. But I didn’t say any of that.

You take the low road of insult and slander, attacking blogs and bloggers you have likely never even opened let alone read with a critical but open mind. THAT is a poisoned mind Lydia.

You should have stayed on your stated mission:

Welcome to the home page of Lydia McGrew. I am a homemaker and home schooling mom, and I do analytic philosophy in some of my spare time

Analytic philosophy indeed. Maybe have Tim go over this stuff before you float it out there for the world to see. You cannot wade into an arena where there are very intelligent and reputable people and expect to brush them off with lazy thinking and cheap insults. There are uneducated women less than 25 years old who make far better and more well considered points against manosphere ideas than you have. And, they do it without being condescending.

This is what happens when a women is told that she is special, brilliant, articulate, insightful, throughout life, and that combines with a feminist chip on the shoulder the size of a slab of the 405 after the big one.



19 thoughts on “Lydia McGrew rants….analytically……she rants

  1. Given how slutty she must have been in her past, she really puts the ‘anal’ in ‘analytical’.

  2. Why do you even bother yourself with a feminist?

    Indeed I think one who has understood the deeper truth of the “red pill” wouldn’t even bother discussing anything intellectual with any woman, especially the ones who consider themselves part of the “intelligentsia”. The motivation (perhaps unconsciously) for these types of women (feminist or antifeminist, Christian or not) is really pride and vanity, not pursuit of the truth. Everyone likes to think others ought to learn from them.

  3. It’s very important when posting responses to do two things.
    1. Recognize that it’s not really a debate–that comments in opposition should be to help those who are skeptical wake up.

    2. That it is not a debate because feminism is a religion, as I posted earlier this year. Feminism doesn’t seem like a religion–after all its broadly stated aims are often talked of in a socio-political vein–but after all many religions have been political.

    3. Lydia demonstrates this by seeing male frustration and anger as condemnation rather than as growing irritation over women’s hypocrisy. The idea that men are entirely responsible for their own actions while women are not responsible for theirs is the main reason for this anger.

    4. one of the perhaps unintentionally clever things feminism has done is to state that there is almost no feminism in the world except for embattled besieged desperate heroes. This is an old political trick. You say what makes a better story. Because of this, every discussion with feminists will encounter this cornerstone of belief.

    5. While feminism does such on subjects that are important (the questions of equality, merit, how sex affects gender roles, the role of men and women in the Church, education, justice) they have stated categorically that feminism is the main game in town, that no other ideology touches on these subjects sufficiently. It needs to be understood that this is a powerful cornerstone that has convinced many people, and so when you challenge it you are not simply challenging proposed political or ideological views, but articles of faith.

    6. Concerning articles of faith: I have often said that our society and culture are not really Christian and have not been for some time; there is a veneer of Christianity that is like painting rotten wood with new paint to make a worn down fence look alright from a distance.

    What do people really believe? What do they actually do religiously? Extend their credit, get a second mortgage, choose the right wine at dinner, read the right books on child rearing and relationships, plan for university, get the right car. Those are things we just have come to accept as being normal. I’m not condemning them per se, but pointing out that they are religiously followed as being necessary to life.

    In a less material way, there are things our society has agreed to, like that racial prejudice is bad. Except we don’t merely say that racial prejudice is bad–we say that those who believe in being racially prejudiced are bad people, stupid, cruel and vile.

    Our society says the same about people who oppose feminism. To oppose feminism is to oppose women’s rights as citizens, opposes recognizing any achievements they have accomplished, denies their right to freedom. If you oppose feminism you don’t care if women are raped and abused, downtrodden, trafficked and any number of evil things.

    Feminism is one of the dominant religions in our culture. Opposing it is like saying in earlier times that you hate Baby Jesus.

    So when we do oppose it, in a way the best thing to do is to remember to be like the guys who wanted to hear Warren Farrell speak–let them draw themselves out, and make sure everyone can see how unjust and crazy they really are.

  4. I’m no defender of Lady Lydia (I have my reasons), but I think it’s worth noting that she’s an older woman, as in old enough to have an empty nest and I think grandchildren. Older than you even, Empath, LOL. Her homemaking blog is here:

    See it? YOu don’t even need to read it. Older.

    Men and women of a certain generation are simply not used to the kinds of things you’re talking about here. While we are familiar with the meme of the wife, they are more familiar with the meme of the man who goes out for cigarettes and never return or who leaves his wife for a younger woman.

    Different lenses.

    I know I certainly did. I, like Lydia, did not want to, no….refused to accept that the notion men are destroying families is worth further examination. I was doggedly opposed to defense of men, and more so to holding women at all to account for familial destruction. having been the product of divorce, several times, as a child, and having witnessed severe physical abuse by men of my mother, I was wrapped tight and comfortable in the belief set Lydia espouses. A crowbar would not separate me from those views.

    I had some of those views as well, though not as drastic as you describe. Traumatic childhood stuff, seeing my sister in a really abusive marriage. But my father used to say to us: “You made your bed, you lie in it.”

    I learned something about taking responsibility for the choices I make. And no, I’m not excusing abusive husbands. I’m saying we are responsible for the choices we make and the opportunites for rescue that we let pass us by.

  5. Empath:
    Maybe what the article really demonstrates is that ‘Red Pill Women’ aren’t really as ‘rosy’ as they might appear on the surface. This misandryic culture inculcates a hatred of men in women from their girlhoods onward that few—if any—ever overcome.

  6. “Maybe what the article really demonstrates is that ‘Red Pill Women’ aren’t really as ‘rosy’ as they might appear on the surface.”

    Well of course they’re not, there’s no “maybe” about it. Men and women are sinners, there is no escaping that. Being red pill just means being aware of their nature, it does not mean they are able to change it. Restrain it, or hide it, but eventually we will slip up. It is impossible to go against your own nature, save the power of the Spirit. But you will notice that in many “Christian” manospheres, they are only “red pill” about their sexual nature, but often not mindful about other sinful natures, which are equally important. Pride, arrogance and vanity is everywhere. I myself of course, am guilty of this. However, I find that at least I am self-aware of this (I can only assume not to the full extent), yet most others are not even if their mouths say they are. This leads to false humility, spiritual blindness, and being perpetually unable to see our own true spiritual condition.

    You will also notice that in female manosphere circles (Christian or otherwise), the similar gynocentrism, pedestalization, and supplication occurs. And women love the validation, approval and status that comes with it. They are herd creatures after all, this will never change. Most of the time it is quite subtle, but not too hard to pick out to the keen eye. Sometimes it is outrageously apparent, and it is amazing no one ever calls those men out for it. The truth is, the same mechanism and forces are at work in any society: pride, status, popularity, and gynocentrism take precedence over truth. Not to say it is a conscious decision, but perhaps human nature. This is apparent to me when solid, scripture focused (not just quoting a verse to support your own beliefs) manosphere blogs hardly receive attention because it just doesn’t have the same drama or the author does not have the same status as others.

    Having said that, I suspect not all Christian women are like that. The problem is, if they existed, you would hardly know it, because a gentle and humble spirit would likely not be making sure everyone knows their opinion on a blog. I also doubt a spiritual husband in charge would want their wives spending their time absorbing all sorts of rubbish, empty philosophies and talking to other random men on the internet.

  7. You Have My Permission, you seem to have a good handle on things

    @You Have My Permission:
    “Having said that, I suspect not all Christian women are like that. The problem is, if they existed, you would hardly know it, because a gentle and humble spirit would likely not be making sure everyone knows their opinion on a blog. I also doubt a spiritual husband in charge would want their wives spending their time absorbing all sorts of rubbish, empty philosophies and talking to other random men on the internet.”

    This last paragraph made me nod in agreement and cringe at the same time. Much to think about thank you.

  8. What Hannah said. There is food for contemplation in You Have My Permission’s words.

    That said, my husband and I have actually discussed this at length, and I get the impression from our communications Hannah that you and your husband have as well. Let every man run his own house.

  9. @ Hannah:

    If I were married, or in a serious relationship, I would not want my lady to communicate with random men on the internet.

    But I really do appreciate your input. If you are really who you appear to be, and I believe you are, you have provided a healthy example for women and provided hope for men that there are women out there with your integrity.

    Your husband is blessed. I would shake his hand in admiration if possible.

  10. You Have My Permission:
    You have some good points, although I’m not sure how much of modern women’s behaviors are part of their sin-natures and how much of it is a product of miseducation. That aside, though the last paragraph is something I’d always wondered about as well: while I don’t mind women commenting on Manosphere blogs (even married ones); I find it strange that they don’t set up some kind of parallel to it for women.

    To explain, while Hannah & Elspeth & others make some good points, what we men read are basically things we already agree with coupled with a certain longing that more women aren’t like them. But what does it accomplish? You see my point here—it would do them more good to try and reform women than support men.

    Of course, though, as Laura Grace Robbins once told me—real NAWALT and Red Pill women are so rare, they have to come to the Manosphere just to get away from the smothering atmosphere of feminism—that’s very likely true, but the women should remember that the same smothers us men as well!

  11. It has to be incredibly difficult to shrug off the smug. She is a regular contributor to What’s Wrong With the World; which has a lot of very good thinkers on it, and hold’s her own pretty well. Of course, they don’t treat her the same, and there are an awful lot of rules of proper etiquette. They don’t slug it out.

    The overall impression I get is of fencing: It’s a sport of sparring for conservative tendencies, that mimics fighting for principles. Basically, I get the impression they (Lydia and those like her) aren’t in love with the truth, but with the past.

  12. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/12/04 | Free Northerner

  13. When men first starting commenting on my old blog (the current one is far too girly to attract much male notice), I asked my husband if he minded. Should I ban male commenters or ask them not to comment? There are some Christian mommy bloggers who politely ask men who comment not to do so again. My husband said that wouldn’t make much sense and I shouldn’t do it.

    At the same time I told him I sometimes read links back to their blogs. He was fine with that so long as I knew how to behave. Email accounts are open and linked and we have free access to read one another’s at will. Husband is in IT and is very good at what he does so the notion that I (being a tech dunce) could hide something from him online is not likely.

    There have been times when he was checking up on the kids and stumbled across some site I visited and asked point balnk, “What’s this?” He has never forbid me from handling myself like a grownup and when he needs to lay down a law or prohibition, he has no problem doing so. In general, he is glad I have an outlet to prattle on about the issues that bug me, LOL.

    Like I said, let every man run his own house.

  14. Re: Lydia.

    She is very much in love with the past. That’s the sense I got from her homemaking blog when I read it way back when, but I liked the tone. Domesticity could use some good press. Then she wrote a whole post advising women to flatly refuse their husbands if they desire that the wife work. Obey God rather than man and all that. I stopped reading her altogether at that point.

  15. What caught my eye was the title. Men’s Rights What?

    She’s with the freaking Attitude Police.

    AWALT – They’ve all been deputized by the cultural to go around sneering and being disapproving at anyone — men especially — who doesn’t preach and believe how wonderful loving caring nurturing etc women are.

    Speaking truth to estrogen is only fun when done as sport. When attempted in earnest it’s like trying to teach a pig to fly — it doesn’t work, AND it annoys the pig.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s