Within the past year there has been a great deal of controversy over a group of men who call themselves "Red-Pillers" and "Pick-up Artists", especially with the Elliot Rodgers shootings and again with the recent attention on Pick-up Artist Julien Blanc.
They have gained increasing fame against the back drop of, and possibly fueled by, a resurgent radical feminism that is sees every minor inconvenience a woman has in modern-day American society as symptomatic of a widespread and universal "War on Women". The manosphere portrays itself as a rebellion against this resurgence (though they claim it never died) and, as with all rebels, it gives them a certain aura. But, as I hope to show, they are not an answer to the problems of radical feminism. In fact, they are in many ways, a masculine alter ego of radical feminism —though with lower aims. They both promote a War of the Sexes where one must win through Total Victory or become a defeated Stepford Wife or Henpecked Husband.
Now, in discussing them I am not talking about the Men's Rights Movement as a whole nor am I excluding them since the lines between the MRAs and the Red-Pillers/PUAs are often quite blurry. As they have been a rather influential part of the MRAs. This also has absolutely nothing to do with the wonderful blog, Art of Manliness, a website with a philosophy contrary to that of the Red-Pillers. In fact, the major Red-Pill site Return of Kings criticized Art of Manliness for "poisoning the concept of masculinity with Disney Lifestyle Advice" by promoting a pro-family, pro-fatherhood, and pro-marriage view of the world.
Their Worldview
The philosophy of the Manosphere and the Red-pillers can be described by these 4 pillars that I am calling "Female Psychology", "Alpha-Beta Male Dichotomy", "Feminism's Effects", and "Game". The first two describe their "scientific" view of basic human psychology that applies to all men and women at all times and all places, the 3rd describes that state of gender relations in modern society, and the 4th is the rational solution for men in today's world.
(1) Female Psychology: Women, ruled by a “hindbrain”, are driven by a sense of hypergamy to find the most uber-sexy, domineering man, an Alpha, over wimpy Betas, most of the other men because, as Xpat puts it, “Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.” This is a major part of their ideology, Rollo Tomassi (pen-name for the blogger at the Rational Male), makes it his 6th Iron Rule (he has 9), “Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.”
A translation: “Women are only capable of loving men conditionally, that is, if it benefits them.” Now, as with nearly all the best lies this one has a grain of truth to it. Hypergamy is a real thing, it is the desire of a (heterosexual) woman to select as a mate/spouse the highest quality man available with the man's quality hinging on a variety of traits. This can be proven by scientific studies and common sense.
The Pick-up Artists twists this, producing blog posts headlined "Hypergamy Doesn't Care", providing examples of the things Hypergamy doesn't care about:
—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a Father you are to your kids."And so on.
—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a guy you are for adopting the children she had with other men."
—"Hypergamy doesn’t care about how well you do your part of the household chores."
The interesting thing is that, according to every bit of available knowledge of science's understanding of hypergamy... THESE ARE EXACTLY THE THINGS IT DOES CARE ABOUT YOU THICK-HEADED NUMBSKULL!!! They want a man who will be a great father, a great husband, who is caring, who is supportive, but tough enough to not be driven to a mess of tears by the smallest problems. Basically, they want a man. But, this is their world view. So what does "Hypergamy care about"? Well...
(2) Alpha/Beta Male Dichotomy: According to them, most men fall into one of two categories: Alphas and Betas. Alphas are the domineering aggressive men who make history while the Betas are the rest of them, the weak, docile, and pussy-whipped men who make up the vast majority of society. In this view, the quintessential Alphas are men like Genghis Khan and James Bond while a typical Beta would be Al Bundy and Ray Romano. It further states that women are attracted to Alphas.
Now, in theory this may seem ok. A bit black-and-white but with some truth to it. Most men may not aspire to be Genghis Khan but they don't want to be Al Bundy either so they seek the middle road. Surely there is a middle road, neither dominated nor domineering? Well, according to this worldview there isn't. One is either a domineering übermensch who is conquering women or weak and henpecked husband dominated by his wife. There is no middle road.
And Hypergamy, they say, guides women towards the Alphas. While they will "settle" for a Beta if there is no other alternative, they all pine for an Alpha and will cheat on their Beta husband if they find a willing Alpha —even if said Alpha is already taken, for "Women would rather share a high value Man than be saddled by a faithful loser." If you want to see proof of this bubbling up in other sites, the big Red-Pill site website Return of Kings even had an article giving men tips on how to have an affair.
Now, in older days this was ok because, in the pre-feminism era, Beta Males did not have to worry about their wives getting cheating on them with impunity. But then...
(3) Effects of Feminism: Feminism, they claim, by upsetting the natural order of man and wife, has resulted in women developing a sense of entitlement that leads them to abuse and mistreat men. If this sounds like a bit of a leap in logic look at the above pillar; “Women love opportunistically.” If women can only love opportunistically and thus cannot be trusted to be loyal then it is clear that feminism has given them powers and rights with which they cannot be trusted. Women now have the power to abuse and cheat on their boyfriends and husbands (and even fathers and sons) with impunity.
This is very reminiscent, interestingly, of the radical feminist ravings about patriarchy and how under it men are given free reign to abuse and mistreat women. How women are not able to trust men to be caring and loving. That is because both are rooted in a worldview of an identity culture bred by a sense of victimhood. Like the feminists who claim that all women are suffering brutal and daily abuse under an all-powerful patriarchy they claim that feminism has created a situation where all men suffer. Remember the "Hypergamy Doesn't Care" article I mentioned? Well, it is rife with this. I chose the nicer parts, but almost every thing he lists that "Hypergamy doesn't care about" is written in such a way to portray women as evil leeches who will abuse and mistreat men with about as much empathy as a sociopath. Even their view of a once-great and wonderful Eden of Male Superiority has a feminist parallel in the anthropological myth of long-lost "Matriarchal Societies" where life was free and happy.
And, like all victimhood-peddlers they have a solution...
(4) Game: The logical result, they claim, is that men can no longer expect a happy life through marriage and fatherhood and instead must seek a fulfilled life by having as much sex with as many women as they can. To accomplish this they peddle "Game". "Game" is the method of seduction they sell to young men. The strategies they teach vary from the deceptive to the abusive. The most infamous, Julien Blanc recommend that men put their right hand around the girl's neck and go "Shhhhh". He also recommends using tactics of domestic abuse to keep girlfriends, tweeting a photo of a domestic abuse wheel that shows the methods of domestic abuse with the words, "Might as well be a checklist. #HowToMakeHerStay".
He is the most extreme version but one can find hints of this in the statements of other advocates of Game such as the Rollo Tomassi, who pushes a view of relationships that is based entirely on the prism of who has the most power with sex as the sole reason for the relationship, said "Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait."
It's a cynical, grab-what-you can ideology and it is the reason for it all. The Pick-Up Artists are trying to sell "Game" to young men. The reason for the previous 3 pillars is an attempt to provide "evidence" for the need for Game. Its a con. This is not too far from a man who claims that ancient alien souls sent into the bodies of cavemen by an evil alien overlord are the real causes of mental illness and joining his creepy religious cult is the only way one can "cure" oneself of mental health problems.
Conclusion
Yes, there are women who have cheated on their husbands and yet still soaked them in the divorce, just as there are men who have beaten their wives. Some people are simply narcissistic sociopaths. People who will mistreat others for no apparent reason, even when it would've been in their interest to be kind. But the history of human experience shows that these are the exception, not the rule.
In the ideologies of both Radical Feminists and Red-Pillers/PUAs we see them try to depict the world in stark black-and-white terms; casting the other sex as violent and depraved demons while painting their own sex as innocent and unknowing babes in the woods. They are cynical views of the world and with the Pick-up Artist community we see a cynical and nefarious solution with their pushing of "Game".
Yes, unlike feminism, perusing their websites reveals no real desire to change the world into a totalitarian masculine state, though many might like it. Their goals, as "Game" illustrates, are a bit lower. Simply have as much sex as you can. But that only means it is less ambitious. The bile, however, is still very present. They promote themselves as a cure to radical feminism in its modern-day form but they are not a cure. In truth, they are another strain of the same disease.
78 comments:
Sorry about the length, I felt it was the best way to describe just what these guys believe.
Kit, These guys are major losers. I'll have more in the morning, but I find it funny how often sexual dysfunction leads to fundamentalist ideological movements that focus on woman-hating, e.g. Islam, these guys, Rick Santorum, etc.
I could be wrong, but I suspect the notion that 'The opposite sex all want bad people for bad reasons not good people like me' is a thought most everyone has had at one time or the other :). I also believe most don't cling to that notion and base their lives around it.
Anthony,
Yeah, for a brief time this mindset is tolerable as long as one grows out of it, such as during a bout of unrequited love or after a nasty break-up. And, you are right, most do grow out of it. As Paul said, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."
But these bloggers preach that notion and proudly. They have even crafted a pseudoscience around it for the purpose of keeping their readers and followers trapped in that mindset as long as possible so they might buy their stuff.
And for young men who might be having trouble in building the confidence to ask a girl out this might be akin to drug addict seeking help from a group of acid-tripping hippies.
I want to say that not all Men's Rights Activists are like these bloggers. Some of them raise excellent points about issues surrounding family law and the nature of false rape accusations (feminism sometimes raises good points about rape and sexual assault) but this ideology, like with feminism, has infected the larger movement to a point where the good points are drowned out, and sometimes even driven, by a drumbeat of perpetual victimhood and anger.
never knew about any of this. my main concern with any group claiming to want to right past unfairness is while they claim only to want to level the playing field, they usually turn out to want their group to run the show and exact revenge.
Kit, There are some areas where the law definitely has a double standard that is anti-male. And if we're going to make the law gender blind, which is a worthwhile goal in our technocratic society, then those need to be removed just as anti-female bias must be removed. Essentially, the government should be treating everyone as an individual unless they have already lost so legal right by, for example, being a felon.
The problem is that these guys don't care about that. They are essentially a whiner movement, just as feminism has become, just as Islam is as it's sickest core, just as many off the hard core religious right are, just as socialists are, etc. They are people who have failed to relate to a group of other people and have developed a hateful ideology to explain that failure as being the cause of some evil within the enemy rather than failure of their own.
This of course leads them to see themselves as victims. In particular they love to see themselves as victims of persecution by society as a whole because it confirms to them that their personal failures are the result of outside conspiracies.
"They are people who have failed to relate to a group of other people and have developed a hateful ideology to explain that failure as being the cause of some evil within the enemy rather than failure of their own.
This of course leads them to see themselves as victims. In particular they love to see themselves as victims of persecution by society as a whole because it confirms to them that their personal failures are the result of outside conspiracies."
I think you've summed them up. "They are essentially a whiner movement."
I honestly don't have much to add that hasn't been mentioned already... EXCEPT to thank you for the mention of Art of Manliness. It's an excellent website, wonderfully old school in the best possible way, and I feel completely inadequate every time I read it. :-)
But seriously, I've found it to be a wealth of useful information. (Though I have no plans to start shaving with a straight razor!)
I guess I should have known that people like these bloggers exist but wow. I have met guys like them and they are generally successful in getting a lot of women. But they have no heart and women usually figure it out and don't stay with them.
Young women can be very naïve and confuse confidence with arrogance. Young men are very naïve as well at this. Over time though most women figure it out and realize that their life will probably be better with the geek than with the jock. I met one guy while in school, a friend of a friend, who lived in San Francisco. It was amazing to watch him work a group of women. He seemed like a nice guy but in hindsight he didn't care to get to know anyone. After watching him work a girl and get her number he left and I went up to the girl to talk to her. I ask her what it was that attracted her to that particular guy and she gave vague answers. I mentioned that I was amazed about how easy it was for him to get numbers and she asked "what do you mean?" I told her that he dates a lot of women and gets numbers from girls he just met easily. She was shocked and didn't believe it. When I pointed it out that he did it to her, she refused to talk to me anymore.
Scott,
Art of Manliness is a good site.
Here is the Return of Kings article (pathetically) attacking it.
“Art Of Manliness” Is Poisoning The Concept Of Masculinity With Disney Lifestyle Advice
Here is the first paragraph:
-------------------------------------------
I’ve perused the website Art of Manliness a few times in the past year. Something always vaguely turned me off about it, with its smug, woman-friendly, safe, feel-good presentation, and those feelings have recently hardened into outright hostility. Simply put, Art of Manliness is neither artful nor manly. It’s strictly a commercial site designed only to make money for its owners, and offers a neutered version of masculinity that would appeal only to pot-bellied, middle-aged keyboard jockeys. These are the problems I have with the site.
-------------------------------------------
The entire thing will give you several laughs.
Koshcat,
I think a lot of men and women are both like that when they are young. They mistake certain negative personality attributes for positive personality attributes. But, again, most people grow up.
Off-topic. No indictment against Darren Wilson.
Kit - I am sorry I have not been around today. I have been traveling today. Very interesting article. All I can add right now is being gendered person has gotten to be so much more complicated since the 1950's...
Also...interesting that the Grand Jury declined to indict. Having served on a criminal Grand Jury in NYC, I would think that they must not have any shred of evidence to cause them to indict. As I found out, GJ's don't usually need much evidence and it's very unusual NOT to indict.
re Ferguson, the prosecutor presented ALL of their evidence on the case to the Grand Jury. They apparently don't usually do that. (Probably should more often)
Everyone,
One thing that radical feminists and these Red-Pillers have in common, as well as many other groups like this, is their focus on power. Who has more power in a relationship.
Rollo Tomassi's Cardinal Rule of Relationships: "In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least." And then there is the Radical Feminists' obsession with the "power" of the woman in a relationship. Its a doctrine in many nutty groups such as Nazis, Communists, etc.
C.S. Lewis summed this up well: "Those who begin worshipping power soon worship evil."
Koshcat,
You honestly went up to a woman your friend just successfully hit on and explained his technique and success rate to her? Wow. Is he still your friend?
Kit and Koshcat,
Its my pet theory that while women tend to expect more from relationships, women of all ages and levels of experience sometimes want as little from relationships as men. They just tend to be less honest about it (with others and themselves) in part due to differing standards for men and women.
I'm not surprised by the Ferguson thing. The store security tape made it clear Brown was a thug and gave him a motive to attack the cop who stopped him. Anyone dumb or evil enough to attack a cop is a person whose death makes the world a better place.
Too bad some idiots in Ferguson are rioting. I don't get why anyone is upset but at least most are keeping it peaceful.
Good post, Kit.
"Yes, unlike feminism, perusing their websites reveals no real desire to change the world into a totalitarian masculine state, though many might like it. Their goals, as "Game" illustrates, are a bit lower."
Which feminist websites promote the idea of changing the world into a totalitarian feminine state?
If you familiarize yourself with the manosphere, you will notice that many of its representatives advocate Patriarchy 2.0 characterized by a near total subjection of women. It is obviously an absurd proposition, but it is quite prevalent among the Red Pill sociopathic losers.
Anon,
I will try to answer both your questions in one go. One very long go. Didn't expect that.
"Totalitarian" may have been a bit of hyperbole but in some sense I think it is accurate. What I mean is this, radical feminism is constantly pushing laws and codes to fundamentally change society and male-female relations where-as the PUAs seem only to want to get laid.
Such as speech codes where speech is considered hateful or offensive based on subjective tests subject to whether or not a person who overhead it felt it was not based on any rational degree. The real-world result is that any speech can be classified as hateful or even harassment not only whether or not it was intended but whether or not an rational person would consider it either.
Basically, this is the logic Obi Wan Kenobi used when he told Luke he did not lie to him when he said Vader "betrayed and murdered your father". By that logic just about anything can be stated as truth. Even flat-out lies. These speech codes often apply a similar principle to harassment and hate speech. Anything can be hate speech.
This opens up a legal pandora's box of dangers where it can be endlessly abused to go after people for legitimate speech. Speech for or against abortion can be considered "hateful" from the right point of view. Solzhenitsen described Article 58 of the Soviet Penal Code, the very vague law that criminalized subversion and counter-revolutionary activities, "There is no step, thought, action, or lack of action under the heavens which could not be punished by the heavy hand of Article 58."
The PUAs and Red-Pillers, despite all of their rhetoric, merely aim to get laid. This may have more to do with the respective groups' perspectives of their own power. The Radical Feminists, with many members in academia, think they are strong enough to accomplish their goals but the PUAs, who inhabit only the loneliest places of the internet, do not and so settle for something smaller.
They might push against certain laws. Sometimes they are in the right (speech codes). Of course, as Larry Niven once said, "There is no cause so noble it won't attract fuggheads."
"Yes, there are women who have cheated on their husbands and yet still soaked them in the divorce, just as there are men who have beaten their wives."
The difference is society punishes men who exploit women.
There are laws against rape. There are laws against domestic violence.
Hell, they're even trying to introduce a law where if a guy tells a girl he loves her when he doesn't, or tells a girl he is a rich doctor when he isn't, in order to get sex, he can be charged with rape. (Never mind the numerous lies women might say in order to get a commitment from a guy, "I'm still a virgin, I've never had a one night stand, I never went home with him." But hey, cuckoldry only happens to men so we don't need to make laws forbidding it.)
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/rape_by_fraud_nj_lawmaker_introduces_bill_to_make_it_a_crime.html
But society does not punish women who exploit men. Particularly when that exploitation is of a form where only a woman can exploit the man, i.e. cuckoldry.
Anthony,
He wasn't my friend but a friend of a friend. I thought he was kind of a pig but I was curious about why it worked because it seemed so fake to me.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Kit.
I'm not as familiar with the feminist rhetoric and politics as I am with the psychopathy of the manosphere, and maybe that's why the connections you delineated in your post were not clear to me. I appreciate your elaboration.
I would not, however, dismiss the psychopathic goals of the manosphere, and its Red Pill branch in particular (not just PUA), as merely "getting laid." I would encourage you to explore the subject further to develop a better understanding of what these misogynist psychopaths are really about and what world order they advocate.
Their sexual frustration and self-pity are just the surface expressions of deeper desires and plans of re-shaping society according to their psychopathic goals.
"Their sexual frustration and self-pity are just the surface expressions of deeper desires and plans of re-shaping society according to their psychopathic goals."
But those goals, unlike the feminists', will never take an accepted hold in a civilized society because MRAs / Red Pill grievances, unlike the feminists', are based on imagined wrongs done to them by women in general and feminists in particular. They have no basis in reality, unlike the feminists' fight against very real political, legal, and social inequality of women.
One movement is based on a genuine human desire to correct real, objectively existing oppression, while the other is a fight to keep that from happening. Only one of those two has morality on its side.
Anon, Let me chime in for a moment. I think feminism originally had a strong moral basis because it opposed discriminatory legal restrictions that reasonable people realized shouldn't have existed. That's also why feminism was so wildly successful at first, because it's demands were undeniable.
But that agenda has essentially been completed and what "feminists" push now is reverse-discrimination combined with victimology. In fact, feminism has gone from "I'm your equal, give me a chance" to "the world offends me, protect me from anything I don't like and give me jobs I never bothered to earn." At the same time, the demands and grievances have become more and more outlandish, to the point of demonstrating the lunatic nature of the minds pushing the theories.
That's why feminism has essentially died as a movement at this point, because only a tiny fraction of women think like this and no one else wants to be associated with them.
The problem with the "men's rights" movement is that their leaders tend to be from the angry fringe. There are certainly some valid grievances about legal discrimination and inequality, but these guys only treat that as the hook to bring audiences in before they quickly start accusing women of trying to destroy me, they start saying women should be forced back into the home, and they typically start screaming about an ex-wife and various "man-hating" judges who took away their kids for reasons they won't ever quite delineate. The result is that you get the sense that the people pushing men's rights are really just looking for revenge for being punished for some major misbehavior they won't admit to.
Yes, Andrew, the manosphere is a "revenge movement," but it is not even revenge for being punished "for some major misbehavior they won't admit to," although that plays a large role for some, maybe even most.
Their need for revenge -- on women in general, and on feminists in particular -- comes from a frustrated sense of entitlement, mostly sexual, but not only. It is these men's reaction to what they perceive as the erosion of their (unearned) privilege, both real and imagined. There is a special term created by Michael Kimmel for this psychological phenomenon: aggrieved entitlement.
It is important to point out that MRA and Red Pillers in particular do not represent normal and healthy standards of masculinity -- in fact, they exemplify the opposite: its damaged and antisocial version, permeated with aggrieved entitlement.
.
Before I reply any further!
First, thank you to those new to the site for reading and taking the time to comment.
However, we have at least two different people (maybe 3) who have all listed themselves as Anonymous. Given the way Google blogger works, I understand this but it makes things for Andrew and I to reply to comments.
Therefore I want to politely ask that any further comments in reply this article to have a name listed either at the beginning or end of the comment. Just say "[Name] here…" at the beginning or "—[Name]" at the end.
It does not have to be your real name, it can be anything. Carla Danger, NewYorkRes1500, or RobotMaria1927.
We at Commentarama desire a vigorous debate but with so many comments listed as "Anonymous" and no way to identify who is saying what that becomes very difficult.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Anon, Those are both excellent points. The term "aggrieved entitlement" actually fits all these groups perfectly. They aren't looking for freedom, equality and fairness, they are looking to be awarded a permanent status of entitlement based on their seeing themselves as victims.
And you are100% right that these guys do not represent normal, healthy standards of masculinity (or femininity in feminist ranks). They are, instead, exactly what you say -- antisocial, damaged, paranoid and twisted.
"I would not, however, dismiss the psychopathic goals of the manosphere, and its Red Pill branch in particular (not just PUA), as merely "getting laid." I would encourage you to explore the subject further to develop a better understanding of what these misogynist psychopaths are really about and what world order they advocate. "
Thank you for that reply.
I would say in response that one does not need grand goals to be a psychopath. In fact, the goals and motivations of a sociopath can, and often are, quite petty and small.
And when you dig through all of the top-layer stuff, all the things they advocate, all of the "Game", all the pseudo-science about "hindbrain" and "hypergamy", that is what it is all about; "Getting laid". Once you dig through everything else, it is all about finding fulfillment through endless sexual conquests by whatever means necessary. It is carpe diem gone mad; "Seize the day" and damn the consequences
None of the men who push this philosophy the hardest ever strike me as being people who could find satisfaction in life from being a good father of good husband or simply being a good person. So they sought an alternative route of hedonism and, in so doing, seek to justify their own inability by tearing down men who choose the traditional route as "henpecked husbands" and "White knights" and "Uncle Tims". A bit like bullies.
So, I would say that their goals are really just about "getting laid" and they push it to cover for their own inadequacies. If they are not sociopaths, and some are, then they are just really pitiful.
Hi, Kit, this is Carla Danger, the third (? I think) anon on this thread.
You say:
"I would say in response that one does not need grand goals to be a psychopath. In fact, the goals and motivations of a sociopath can, and often are, quite petty and small."
You are entirely correct. One defining feature of psychopathy is moral blindness: psychopaths are incapable of experiencing and understanding (emotionally and intuitively, as well as intellectually most of the time) higher human feelings (empathy, compassion, love, self-sacrifice) and values (see higher feelings; also pursuit of the truth, justice, equality, etc.) They sometimes talk about such things like truth and justice, but those are just words they use to further their own goals.
It is often said, correctly, that psychopaths do not have values, they only have goals. And those goals are related to the most primitive drives: sex and power, sometimes (with the brighter ones) dressed in a high-falutin' language of religion or political ideals, more often (in case of TRP) not.
The Red Pill psychopaths' inability to experience higher feelings and values is most clearly demonstrated in their attitude toward women, whom they cannot begin to conceptualize as full human beings (if at all). For them, women are objects to use to satisfy their two goals (sex and power). Psychopaths generally do not see other people, especially those who are unlike them, as full human beings (if at all), but in case of Red Pill psychopaths, their attitudes toward women are the most obvious example of this tendency to objectification which stems from their inability to empathize.
It is immediately clear that these men are damaged beyond repair, and that Red Pill gives them a "permission" (or so they believe) to let their not-so-inner psychopath out, which they, in their moral blindness, experience as "freedom." But it is anything but, as anyone who's not morally deficient knows at once.
So yes, you are totally right, but I don't think what you said conflicts with the other anon's observation (unless I missed something).
"And when you dig through all of the top-layer stuff, all the things they advocate, all of the "Game", all the pseudo-science about "hindbrain" and "hypergamy", that is what it is all about; "Getting laid". Once you dig through everything else, it is all about finding fulfillment through endless sexual conquests by whatever means necessary. It is carpe diem gone mad; "Seize the day" and damn the consequences."
Exactly. It is psychopathic to boot. Textbook classic moral insanity, or moral blindness (a.k.a psychopathy).
"None of the men who push this philosophy the hardest ever strike me as being people who could find satisfaction in life from being a good father of good husband or simply being a good person. So they sought an alternative route of hedonism and, in so doing, seek to justify their own inability by tearing down men who choose the traditional route as "henpecked husbands" and "White knights" and "Uncle Tims". A bit like bullies."
*A lot* like bullies.
Yes, those are all expressions of their psychopathic damage. Notice how these men's ideas, specifically Red Pillers' ideas, for remaking their lives and society are in tune with their psychopathic goals (sex and power / status). That's also why they are so hostile and contemptuous toward the "Blue Pill" mindset -- it represents the higher human feelings and values which are forever beyond their reach and which stand in such a stark contrast with their own moral degeneracy.
"So, I would say that their goals are really just about "getting laid" and they push it to cover for their own inadequacies. If they are not sociopaths, and some are, then they are just really pitiful."
Yes.
CD
P.S. Happy Thanksgiving. :)
viva la difference...
I'm of South Asian descent. Its interesting to note that the origins of the term "hypergamy" stem from what the British Imperialists saw in India during their unfortunate rule there: the discouragement of daughters from marrying men beneath them on the social strata.
The elders had the wisdom and foresight to encourage hypergamy, knowing fully well that the tendency of "love" is to be blind. Thinking in terms of long term benefit for all family members, rather than just the short term fun-feelings of one or two young, naive individuals, they discouraged hypogamy and encouraged hypergamy in the young women.
So its the exact OPPOSITE of what these MRA bozos are proposing. If left without encouragement, young, naive women are likely to marry any clown that she feels "in love" with. Same goes for young, naive men. The elders in our culture encourage young people to think for long-term benefit rather than short-term enjoyment.
Hypergamy is a force for good that needs to be cultivated over and above a natural, blind sort of love,
"However, we have at least two different people (maybe 3) who have all listed themselves as Anonymous. Given the way Google blogger works, I understand this but it makes things for Andrew and I to reply to comments.
Therefore I want to politely ask that any further comments in reply this article to have a name listed either at the beginning or end of the comment. Just say "[Name] here…" at the beginning or "—[Name]" at the end. "
I didn't see this but now I do. Is that why my "anonymous" comment did not get posted?
"The Pick-up Artists twists this, producing blog posts headlined "Hypergamy Doesn't Care", providing examples of the things Hypergamy doesn't care about:
—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a Father you are to your kids."
—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a guy you are for adopting the children she had with other men."
—"Hypergamy doesn’t care about how well you do your part of the household chores."
And so on.
The interesting thing is that, according to every bit of available knowledge of science's understanding of hypergamy... THESE ARE EXACTLY THE THINGS IT DOES CARE ABOUT YOU THICK-HEADED NUMBSKULL!!! They want a man who will be a great father, a great husband, who is caring, who is supportive, but tough enough to not be driven to a mess of tears by the smallest problems. Basically, they want a man."
This!
And if you look up the definition of "hypergamy" once of the first uses of th word was by the British Raj to describe the marriage system of India wherein parents discouraged their daughters from marrying men below them on the social strata. The wise elders knew that young people are largely influenced by hormones and young women might marry any ol' slacker they feel "in love" with. To prevent such a tragedy, the parents encouraged their daughters to engage in hypergamy, or at least equigamy, via arranged marriage.
So hypergamy is a positive thing. MRA's interpretation of it is negative, and is in act hypOgamy, not hypERgamy.
"A translation: “Women are only capable of loving men conditionally, that is, if it benefits them.” Now, as with nearly all the best lies this one has a grain of truth to it. Hypergamy is a real thing, it is the desire of a (heterosexual) woman to select as a mate/spouse the highest quality man available with the man's quality hinging on a variety of traits. This can be proven by scientific studies and common sense.
The Pick-up Artists twists this, producing blog posts headlined "Hypergamy Doesn't Care", providing examples of the things Hypergamy doesn't care about:
—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a Father you are to your kids."
—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a guy you are for adopting the children she had with other men."
—"Hypergamy doesn’t care about how well you do your part of the household chores."
And so on.
The interesting thing is that, according to every bit of available knowledge of science's understanding of hypergamy... THESE ARE EXACTLY THE THINGS IT DOES CARE ABOUT YOU THICK-HEADED NUMBSKULL!!! They want a man who will be a great father, a great husband, who is caring, who is supportive, but tough enough to not be driven to a mess of tears by the smallest problems. Basically, they want a man."
THIS. A million times, this!
If you look up the definition to hypergamy you will find one of its first usages was by British people in India who observed the arranged marriage system. The wise elders recognized that young people are largely led by their hormones and emotions and so instead of letting young women marry any 'ol slacker, they encouraged them to pracitice equigamy or hypergamy, as opposed to the hypogamy they may have otherwise engaged in.
The MRAs got it backwards. What they call "hypergamy" is actully "hypogamy" and vice versa.
Psychopaths and not, the manosphere is a collection of some of the sickest creeps you'd ever have a displeasure to meet, online and off.
These are men who, for instance, routinely advocate psychological, physical, and sexual abuse of women, even children. And so one prolific manospheric commentator describes how he trains his young daughter to please men. Another, who recenly advised, on "The Psychopathic... er, 'Rational' Male," screaming at and hitting women who are not properly submissive, gushes on his own blog about the joys of turning his daughters into sex slaves. And all members of their intended audience admiringly approve, and rush to share their stories of putting women in their place.
One hopes that those tales catch the attention of the FBI and local law enforcement where applicable.
To top it off, these sick perverts bleet grandiosely and without a hint of irony about how only men are able to love idealistically (presumably with the abuse they advocate being a sign of such idealistic love) and decry women's inherent solipsism.
Can't make this up. In the common parlance, this is some seriously crazy shit.
I don't find the MRAs to be extremists at all. Many aspects of the law have been twisted by feminists to ignore due process and violate the constitution. Furthermore, marriage is dying in America because the laws around marriage are very unfair to men.
Read 'Men on Strike' by Dr. Helen Smith.
Hemamalini,
-------------------------------
And if you look up the definition of "hypergamy" once of the first uses of th word was by the British Raj to describe the marriage system of India wherein parents discouraged their daughters from marrying men below them on the social strata. The wise elders knew that young people are largely influenced by hormones and young women might marry any ol' slacker they feel "in love" with. To prevent such a tragedy, the parents encouraged their daughters to engage in hypergamy, or at least equigamy, via arranged marriage.
-------------------------------
I was not aware of that bit of Indian history. Fascinating!
Dano,
Though it had been in the works for about a month it was the recent story of Julien Blanc, who advocated abusive behavior as a way of seducing women, that made me decide to finally get this thing finished. A disgusting piece of crap.
Though I would not call him the "most hated man in the world" as CNN did. I can think of several other people who would rank a lot higher (the leader of Boko Haram, for instance). Being hated requires being known. He is not well-known outside of his supporters (who pay $3000) and critics. I even had to look him when writing this comment because I had forgotten how to spell his surname.
I only read a few articles at The Rational Male and for the most part I ignored the comments. So I was not aware of the guy who "gushes on his own blog about the joys of turning his daughters into sex slaves." I hope that he (or she) is simply trolling.
Glad we agree on the "bullies" thing. In fact, it seems we agree on most here.
However, I don't think those "higher human feelings" are "forever beyond their reach". Anyone can change, it is the difficulty of changing oneself that people find intimidating.
Hi folks. I myself AM a member of the manosphere and the men's rights movement. You've left out a whole bunch of stuff. Allow me to give you some red pills to fill in the gaps.
As Paul Elam noted in the 20/20 interview that will never be aired because they did not succeed in making him look like a raving lunatic (he was sensible, his interviewer almost lost control) through out the first wave of feminism, the second wave of feminism, and now in our third wave of feminism, the roles and responsibilities of men have not changed all that much. Women (be they feminist or not) still expect men to shoulder all the accountability (and financial support) they did before while women are less and less accountable for their actions. That has been the result of feminism, make the world safer and more welcoming for a woman's total lack of moral agency.
Think about it, what possible good is accomplished with no-fault-divorce? Why was it created? It was created to transfer HEADSHIP to women in marriage. Now, a man must constantly make his hypergamous wife happy OR ELSE she can blow up the marriage (unilaterally) for no reason, keep the house that he paid for, and get alimony and child support. That is marriage. Feminism fought hard to make sure state government created these laws to reward a woman's hypergamy. But it is even worse than that. She is free to cheat on her husband with another man, get a restraining order on her husband if she confronts her about it, divorce him, move her new lover into her ex-husbands house, and live with her new alpha boyfriend all the while her beta husband must continue providing the two of them financial provisioning. AND she gets to keep the kids. That's the law. And its wrong.
Men in the manosphere are sick of this crap. Don't you get it? Don't any of you get it?
Google MGTOW. The marriage rate is dropping like a rock. Young men are increasingly aware of women's total lack of moral agency and they are increasingly refusing to "man up" and marry them. Why should they? Why would they want to marry a mid twenty-something girl with $100K in student loans that she amassed earning her useless women's studies degree to make her an HR generalist? She is never going to pay that debt off, never. And she needs a husband to pay off her debt and why should he? This debt of hers is like... anti-dowry.
Don't you get it? The manosphere talks about the things that the media refuses to because the reality is so hard and frightening to women, they dare not speak it for fear of women organizing some kind of protest that might cost someone their job. That is what feminism has accomplished with this new "war on women" bullsh-t. All it really is, is women fighting tooth and nail not to be accountable for anything.
I hope my post was a little bit enlightening. And no I am not so woman hater. I am just a person who has swallowed the red pill and is now free to see the world for what it is. And things are not pretty.
Dano wrote,
"Another, who recenly advised, on "The Psychopathic... er, 'Rational' Male," screaming at and hitting women who are not properly submissive, gushes on his own blog about the joys of turning his daughters into sex slaves."
Links please. Most parents cringe or feel uncomfortable at the thought of their kids having sex, but the Manosphere produced a father who is grooming his daughters to become sex slaves?! I need the link so I can verify this and possibly report this psycho if it is really that bad!!!!
Anonymous,
"Think about it, what possible good is accomplished with no-fault-divorce? Why was it created? It was created to transfer HEADSHIP to women in marriage. "
So you're saying the HEADSHIP should rest with the husband, is it?
"Now, a man must constantly make his hypergamous wife happy OR ELSE she can blow up the marriage (unilaterally) for no reason, keep the house that he paid for, and get alimony and child support."
Oh please. Alimony is all but dead except amongst the very rich, and women pay child support too. No fault divorce created an easy out for men. Everything is split down the middle.
Hemamalini, the poster who gushes about the joys of turning daughters into sex slaves goes by the moniker xplat. He is a particularly nasty creep - and that says something - among the manospherian commentariat: a mentally unstable Westerner who currently lives in Southeastern Asia and preys on girls and young women there. His blog is titled "Random Xpat Rantings," and the post where he discusses the joys of "fatherly love" is here: http://www.donotlink.com/cq2q
The manosphere is home for perverts like him.
Oh please. Alimony is all but dead except amongst the very rich, and women pay child support too. No fault divorce created an easy out for men. Everything is split down the middle.
Absolutely false. Men pay 96% of child support, while women pay 4%. Also, why is custody always given to the woman (meaning she gets the free money called 'child support' which she does not have to spend on the child)? Joint custody would be fair.
And 'split down the middle'? Why should the party who is leaving get anything at all.
Wedded Abyss explains this in a way simple enough for most people to understand. See the Chris Rock video too :
http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/
At any rate, more and more young men are seeing this as the fraud that it is, and avoiding marriage. If an Indian golddigger thinks the laws are 'fair', that is sort of like the burglar deciding what type of lock is on the front door, isn't it?
The large number of women in the Men's Rights Movement is also telling.
The manosphere is home for perverts like him.
I've been in the manosphere for years, and have never heard of xsplat. If you have to depend on some fringe commenter who most people have never heard of, you are pathetic.
Rather, the critics of the manosphere include Eliot Rodger, who has a lot in common with you people.
This article shows that 'social conservatives' have far more in common with radical feminists and big-government leftists, than with anyone who cares about small government, personal responsibility, or following the Bible.
If the woman leave unilaterally (which is what 80% of divorces are) :
1) Why does SHE get any money at all?
2) Why does SHE get custody of the children, rather than joint custody?
3) Why do men go to prison for inability to pay child support, but women have no obligation to demonstrate that they spent it on the child?
Thankfully, many on the Right, from Ann Coulter to James Taranto, to bloggers Glenn Reynolds and Stacey McCain, are pretty much on board with the Men's Rights Movement.
Kit, Blanc is a disgusting piece of crap.
Thing is, he is exactly like all the other disgusting pieces of crap that make up this so-called manosphere - so craposphere would be a better name for it.
They may differ in shape and size, but they all are disgusting pieces of crap, not different from Blanc in their craptitude.
How can we tell? None of them condemned Blanc. For one.
"I've been in the manosphere for years, and have never heard of xsplat. If you have to depend on some fringe commenter who most people have never heard of, you are pathetic."
There is nothing "fringe" about xplat. He is as mainstream as manosphere goes as you and the rest of your buddies are. He shares your misogyny and paranoia to a T, and his actions are a manifestation of both.
"Rather, the critics of the manosphere include Eliot Rodger, who has a lot in common with you people."
Oh yes; also, white is black and up is down.
Hilarious.
This is exactly the kind of disconnect from reality that makes you the laughingstock of rational people everywhere.
How can we tell? None of them condemned Blanc. For one.
Umm... tons of them condemned Blanc, notably Matt Forney and Roosh.
Not that facts matter to a non-thinker like you.
You call yourselves 'conservatives', but are anything but.
No wonder Men's Rights is growing, and many women are part of the movement.
There is nothing "fringe" about xplat. He is as mainstream as manosphere goes as you and the rest of your buddies are.
No he isn't. He isn't one of the top 10 or even top 20 bloggers in it.
If you have to find a fringe nobody in order to slander facts and logic that exceed your moral emptiness, you are pathetic.
Dr. Helen Smith is a proper representation of the manosphere, as are Paul Elam, Bill Price (The Spearhead), and Roosh (despite being a PUA, a far better moral center than people like you).
Anyway, the Manosphere is growing, and a lot of women are on board. There is nothing you can do about that.
Eliot Rodger said exactly the same things about the manosphere that Dano did. Both hated the facts, logic, and human rights advocacy of the manosphere.
Yep. The same.
Thanks (or should I say "no thanks"?), Dano.
The first two opening sentences from that piece;
"It’s long been known that men commonly get erections when their young infants are placed on their chests. I’ve experienced this myself with my male baby many years back."
Viva La Manosphere!
And yes, Roosh's "condemnations" of Julien Blanc are telling. He's worried about PR more than women. Roosh also wrote a blog on how to get away with statutory rape and Matt Forney had his own controversies over violence toward women a few years back. Unless they deleted these gems of literature, a scrolling back through their blogs will reveal all. Google is your friend.
-------
If the woman leave unilaterally (which is what 80% of divorces are) :
1) Why does SHE get any money at all?
2) Why does SHE get custody of the children, rather than joint custody?
3) Why do men go to prison for inability to pay child support, but women have no obligation to demonstrate that they spent it on the child?
Joint custody is quite normal these days and as I said before, alimony is a thing of the past, excepting the very rich in which cases you see it goes both ways. Often a much wealthier ex-wife will have to shell out alimony to her lesser affluent ex-husband.
I know several women who pay child support, and a few who had run ins with the law over not meeting deadlines, 2 who did jail time. One can't leave the country because even though all of her children are grown with children of their own now, because she "owes" back child support she cannot be issued a visa and is stuck in the states without permission to travel abroad even for a short time to visit her oldest daughter and her own two kids - and she's over 60!!!
Despite having a great relationship with all her adult kids and being practically a full time nanny to her grandchildren here in the States, because of "in arrears" from many years ago, she is punished.
Hi, Kit, Carla Danger here.
You said:
"Glad we agree on the "bullies" thing. In fact, it seems we agree on most here."
Yes, we do.
"However, I don't think those "higher human feelings" are "forever beyond their reach". Anyone can change, it is the difficulty of changing oneself that people find intimidating."
It is a noble belief, Kit, but one not borne out by reality. I agree that yes, almost anyone who possesses a conscience can change; unfortunately psychopaths do not have a conscience. Thus their blindness to higher feelings and values, or, on occasion, their extremely egocentric interpretation of such feelings and values: e.g., psychopaths may talk about love, but their idea of love is a gratification of their own primitive needs, there is nothing loving or giving in it; or freedom, which for them means a possibility of pursuing their egocentric goals unencumbered by doubts and scruples; etc. The absence of conscience is quite possibly the worst human handicap, and it is one that makes change impossible. And the absence of conscience is what makes one a psychopath.
There is a biological basis for psychopathy, which we can assess it by a number of indicators (diminished physiological correlates of the fear response; lack of physiological arousal when witnessing suffering of others; reduced limbic activation during emotion processing; higher than average levels of testosterone in both males and females; and more). Unless these individuals undergo a complete body and mind transplant, they are incapable of change into normals, much less advanced forms of psychological growth.
The manosphere not only is a safe heaven for psychopaths, but it actively promotes psychopathy as a standard of "normal" masculinity. This makes it especially important for healthy men to speak out against it, so I thank you for writing this important post.
Carla, I agree that the Manosphere attracts psychopaths but psychopaths are an extreme minority in the population. Like less than 2% IIRC. So the vast majority of Manosphere guys (and some Manosphere women, yes they exist) will not be psychopaths but just deeply wounded, suffering people lashing out in anger because they know no better way to deal with the human reality of suffering.
This is where the 4 Noble Truths (that teach that suffering is inevitable and how to deal with it), as well as CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and Vipassana come in. These 3 can and do change people. I've seen it hundreds of time.
They could have changed Michael Brown, they could change the Ferguson situation, they could change a lot of wrong things in human culture, if they are taught and applied.
Hema, I am all for 4 Noble Truths and other methods of fostering our psychological growth, but I am very certain that those hundreds of times you've seen them help people change did not include psychopaths.
Psychopaths do not desire such change -- they cannot envision it, nor are capable of it. On the contrary: they are convinced that their views of the world are correct ones and other people, those bothered by doubts, inner conflicts, and scruples which prompt them to desire and seek change, are the deficient ones, worthy of their contempt and exploitation.
Yes, "hard" (inborn) psychopaths constitute a small percentage of the human population, but they are disproportionately overrepresented in the manosphere.
While it is true that not all manospherians are "hard" psychopaths, almost all manospherians do their worst to adopt a psychopathic mindset (the Red Pill) and lifestyle. That itself speaks to serious deficits of conscience, which are suggestive of psychopathic-like functioning, even if an individual in question may not meet diagnostic criteria for psychopathy.
For example, there is a large contingent there of emotionally impaired men there who are somewhere on the autistic spectrum and are essentially emotionally and socially illiterate, which makes them particularly susceptible to the influences of "hard" psychopaths whom they want to emulate, not knowing any better.
But in practical terms -- i.e., in terms of emotional development (or lack of it rather) and its impact on society -- there is very little difference between "hard" psychopaths and those who want to follow their lead. Both do untold damage and both are beyond hope for repair and change.
The only possibility for any kind of meaningful psychological growth lies in the sphere of emotions, which, not surprisingly, are so demonized and denigrated by the manospherians who are afraid and contemptuous of things they do not understand. Our intellectual growth peaks in early adulthood, while our emotional development continues throughout our lifespan -- but only for those who are capable of it: those who have the ability to experience at least a normal range and depth of emotions, including moral emotions such as guilt and empathy (a.k.a conscience). Psychopaths are entirely devoid of it; autists have a very limited ability in this respect, although many are empathetic and equipped with a somewhat functioning conscience. Those lucky ones, however, do not permanently inhabit the manosphere.
I posit, with a very high degree of certainty, that no person with an active conscience becomes a regular member of the manosphere. Such persons, even if deeply wounded, angry, and suffering, may stop by to visit, but their active conscience would immediately (or soon after) create a proper reaction of moral revulsion and rejection of what's being promoted there.
So yeah, the manosphere regulars are conscience-deficient, whether they qualify as "hard" psychopaths or not.
This, BTW -- human development and its pathologies, including psychopathy -- is an area of my professional work and interest, and the manosphere has been a ripe area of study, providing quite a bit of useful information in this respect.
Carla D.
"But those goals, unlike the feminists', will never take an accepted hold in a civilized society because MRAs / Red Pill grievances..."
On the contrary, their 'goals' are what has made civilization possible so far. There has never been a non-patriarchal civilization. All matriarchal societies live in grass huts and have no written language or the wheel. Civilization is a masculine enterprise.
No, the current crop of leftists do not know how to make a better civilization. The blank slate-ism and denial of differences and complementary nature of men and women is a denial of observable nature. And it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
This is going to play out like communism in the 20th century with 10s of millions of people starved to death, the rest living miserable lives, until the whole thing collapses.
There is no such thing as a "Strong Independent Woman" TM. These women are completely dependent on the men who maintain the infrastructure that makes possible the cushy jobs and lifestyles of the feminists who demonize men and get more and more unconstitutional and discriminatory laws against men passed.
I have seen no protests complaining about female under representation in garbage collection, steel making, coal mining and construction.
Men are waking up. They are not going to keep doing the heavy lifting in exchange for sh!t and abuse forever. http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2012/07/minimalism-threat.html
BTW, MGTOW is also part of the androsphere and they don't want anything from women, just to be left alone. I notice no mention of MGTOW here. I guess without the strawmen of 'psychopathic women abusers', talking about MGTOW would require an honest examination of the issues instead of the disingenuous feminist white-knighting and ad hominem man bashing on display here.
Carla D said,
"While it is true that not all manospherians are "hard" psychopaths, almost all manospherians do their worst to adopt a psychopathic mindset (the Red Pill) and lifestyle."
Yeah you're right. They often write about the Dark Triad traits of psychopaths and how to do adopt them so as to attract and/or dominate women. They cite the love letters Ted Bundy got in jail as "proof" that "women love psychos".
Jack LaBear said,
" I notice no mention of MGTOW here."
Isn't that a sign of MGTOW actually working?
@Jack LaBear:
Last things first: pointing out the incurable idiocy of MRA and providing step-by-step critique of their most absurd beliefs is not "white-knighting" - unless one is a dim paranoid misogynist unable to deal with reality.
"On the contrary, their 'goals' are what has made civilization possible so far. There has never been a non-patriarchal civilization. All matriarchal societies live in grass huts and have no written language or the wheel. Civilization is a masculine enterprise."
Yep, more absurd MRA BS. Civilization is not just guns and steel. Try building one without women and see what happens in a couple of generations. Good luck.
"No, the current crop of leftists do not know how to make a better civilization. The blank slate-ism and denial of differences and complementary nature of men and women is a denial of observable nature. And it's not nice to fool Mother Nature."
Another paranoia-driven MRA talking points strawman. No one denies basic biological differences between men and women.
"This is going to play out like communism in the 20th century with 10s of millions of people starved to death, the rest living miserable lives, until the whole thing collapses."
Yep, paranoia, alright.
"There is no such thing as a "Strong Independent Woman" TM. These women are completely dependent on the men who maintain the infrastructure that makes possible the cushy jobs and lifestyles of the feminists who demonize men and get more and more unconstitutional and discriminatory laws against men passed."
More MRA talking points. Yawn. Don't you guys ever think for yourselves? Yeah, that's a rhetorical question, you guessed it.
"I have seen no protests complaining about female under representation in garbage collection, steel making, coal mining and construction."
I see no protests over men's underrepresentation in teaching, nursing, care for infants and elderly, crop picking, and floor sweeping. Your point?
"BTW, MGTOW is also part of the androsphere and they don't want anything from women, just to be left alone."
Luckily, women don't want anything to do with them and seem perfectly happy leaving them alone, as they desire. So what's stopping these guys from GTOW already? Seems their GTOW means congregating on manospheric sites and bitching about women with no end.
@Hema:
"Isn't that a sign of MGTOW actually working?"
ROFL
Hemamalini said:
"Yeah you're right. They often write about the Dark Triad traits of psychopaths and how to do adopt them so as to attract and/or dominate women."
They want to dominate (= control) women because they are incapable of relating to them. A desire to control and dominate shows an inability to relate to and influence the world in more mature ways, without imposing one's will on autonomous human beings. They project that desire on women, however, believing that women want to be dominated and then look for examples to reinforce that belief (confirmation bias).
While it is normal and healthy to express a desire to control the course of our own life and the world of inanimate objects, the need to dominate and control other people -- and its inevitable corollary, the use and abuse of others -- usually shows emotional primitivism (often of the psychopathic kind), ignorance, and/or moral corruption.
"They cite the love letters Ted Bundy got in jail as "proof" that "women love psychos"."
But of course. The manosphere is a confirmation bias writ large. These men see such rare sensationalized examples and generalize them on the whole population of women. And while a handful or two of emotionally disturbed women are attracted to notorious dark triad criminals and abusers, some 3 billion remaining ones, who are not similarly disturbed, are not; but hey, AWALT.
That's another aspect of their emotional stupidity and the intellectual limitations it produces: these guys cannot comprehend individual differences, patricularly among women who, to them, are forever mysterious objects, permanently "otherized" (and dehumanized), inscrutable and near identical at the same time (save the differences in "hotness"). As if women were some monolithic borg-like entity (or "herd," as they call it). It is a classic projection of a primitive mind, incapable of empathy or self-reflection.
It is obvious that no emotionally normal man with a more or less satisfying life, whether with women in it or without (e.g., truly "gone his own way"), becomes a member of the manosphere, which is the ultimate Losers' Club.
Carla D.
"A desire to control and dominate shows an inability to relate to and influence the world in more mature ways, without imposing one's will on autonomous human beings....
While it is normal and healthy to express a desire to control the course of our own life and the world of inanimate objects, the need to dominate and control other people -- and its inevitable corollary, the use and abuse of others -- usually shows emotional primitivism (often of the psychopathic kind), ignorance, and/or moral corruption."
An excellent description of feminism.
More and more laws are being passed to control who, men or women?
"Luckily, women don't want anything to do with them and seem perfectly happy leaving them alone, as they desire. So what's stopping these guys from GTOW already?"
Yeah can we get a date and time on that? All I ever see is Jack LaBear types whining about why "there is no mention of MGTOW".
If they've gone their own way why should there be?
Good riddance!
The men's rights movement is pathetic only in that it has so far been ineffective in influencing laws and social policies.
Rather than sweeping things under the rug and sticking your heads in the sand ('they are all just psychopathic wackos'), you would be wise to realize that most men reading the 'sphere are ordinary guys who are reacting to actual observations and experiences in their lives.
It would behoove you to consider whether there are any valid points there, because if the issues are not dealt with, things will get much worse for all of us.
Anon, Your comment was deleted because you apparently are incapable of defending your views without trying to insult other people.
And in case you're wondering, you and a few other posters on your side have managed to show themselves as exactly what the rest of the world sees you as. Congratulations.
"if the issues are not dealt with, things will get much worse for all of us. "
OK I'll bite. What exactly do you envision as getting "much worse for all of us"?
Jack LaBear said:
"Rather than sweeping things under the rug and sticking your heads in the sand ('they are all just psychopathic wackos'), you would be wise to realize that most men reading the 'sphere are ordinary guys who are reacting to actual observations and experiences in their lives."
Oh, make no mistake: no one is sticking our heads in the sand. Misogynist Rape Apologists and their ilk are being closely monitored by both law enforcement and agencies that deal with hate movements of their kind, as well as decent people who are rightly appalled by their activities and existence. And those of us who do this have a very good understanding of the dynamics of this movement and the characters and dealings of its participants. So fear not, we are not sweeping any of this under the rug.
As for being ordinary guys, this is true of MRAs insofar as it is also true of skinheads and members of KKK. Yes, they may appear ordinary on the surface, but there is nothing ordinary about the hatred and paranoia that pervade their thinking and actions.
"It would behoove you to consider whether there are any valid points there, because if the issues are not dealt with, things will get much worse for all of us."
It would behoove us to consider their points as much as it behooves us to consider ideologies of KKK, neonazis, and other reactionary, revenge-driven hate movements. Yes, we have considered them, and we correctly reject them as expressions of dangerous, irrational grievance-filled paranoia of a societal fringe.
Carla D.
The Sexodus? Carla, what do you make of this?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sexodus-Part-1-The-Men-Giving-Up-On-Women-And-Checking-Out-Of-Society
Hema, the only almost interesting thing about this piece is how its author managed to pack in all the manospheric tropes while pretending to engage in "objective" reporting.
It's just same ol' same ol' aggrieved entitlement of the society's rejects, dressed up in a grandiose language of "social critique."
In every society there is always a segment of men who, by the unkindness of genetic lottery, are destined to live on its margins: shunned by women, often unproductive or even destructive. Now thanks to the Internet these men found their "voice" and a "cause," which is blaming feminism for their misery.
Most, if not all, of their (so worn out now) complaints are absurd and divorced from reality (e.g., that boys are somehow disadvantaged or pathologized in the educational system because of its "feminization"). There is simply no evidence to support their "sky is falling! feminists made it so!" hysterical lamentations.
But that narrative works well for them in justifying their failures.
These men should indeed GTOW -- the sooner and faster, the better for everyone concerned. It does not look as though they will be missed today any more than they were missed in previous eras of human history.
Carla D.
Did you read Part 2 of that piece? Roosh V is quoted extensively. LOL!!!!
Interestingly, the reporter is a gay man and Part 1 was largely comprised of quotes from Jack Donovan, a "masculine" gay Manosphere yaktivist.
That's fine. But a curious day innit when gay men become overly concerned about "men giving up on women and checking out of society" as if that's a .... bad thing for them.
*Scratches head in confusion.
Here's one rational response to that silly piece:
http://lauramcnally.com/2014/12/12/men-suffering-on-sexodus-the-right-to-rape/
CD
I agree. That's why I far more involved with intactivism than the mrm. At least intactivists are lowering the circumcision rate.
The mrm is not accomplishing anything
Well, we are just animals at the end of the day.
Well, we are just animals at the end of the day.
MGTOWs are the most pathetic bunch of men. Nothing but a whiny bunch of cry babies. Even prominent MRAs rag on them!
@ Hemamalini, Yes exactly, they should go away and stop bitching!
Post a Comment