Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Male separatism is a wrong turn

You have to be very careful when you adopt political first principles. Inevitably, the logic of these principles gets played out.

That's why I'm concerned that a wing of the men's rights movement has decided on a separatist politics. The aim of these separatists is to reject relationships with women in general and Western women in particular.

Where does a politics based on separatism lead to? First, it encourages the idea that all women are so unworthy that relationships are simply impossible. Which then leads to the kind of attitude expressed by one MRA commenter here at this site:

Women of generation y are sadistic whores who want to make men slaves. I refuse to be a part of it. Every generation y woman is a feminist who hates men even the ones who believe they aren't feminists.

Your daughters are all sadistic man hating whores but you believe them to be pure virgins. And you attack men for doing nothing but defending themselves...

I have no doubt that the feminist order will collapse. Western Civilization will die and the Chinese and Muslim hordes will give Western women what they deserve by raping and slaughtering them. I will be watching this in 2160p with 10.2 surround sound safe in the Chinese empire since I will be able to purchase a place in the Chinese empire. Until then I will play Xbox.

And what are men who reject relationships with women to do? The commenter above intends to spend his life playing computer games while waiting for foreigners to violently punish Western women. Other separatist MRAs have discussed the possibility of the Japanese improving the technology of female robots. And in a recent post at the separatist site The Spearhead, a commenter suggested the following:

Just a thought, guys keep talking about male pill how about libido suppressant? Are there any drugs out there that will suppress a man’s libido so much he would be a functional eunuch (oxymoron i know)?

Imagine never even thinking about sex, means you can without effort treat every hot chick without that mild inner bias to her goodlooks. Possible with game but this time, you wont be feinging dis-interest, with the utlimate aim of getting in her pants.

You would genuinely not be interested in chicks. We might be surprised how many guys would actually go on such pills if they were available.

Nor are separatists going to be at all sympathetic to social conservatives. In fact, at sites like The Spearhead, social conservatives are often considered a worse enemy than feminists. They see us conservatives as being supportive of men marrying (which is true). But given that they see no possibility of marriage being in men's interests, they assume that we support men marrying as a male sacrifice on behalf of women (i.e. out of "chivalry" or "white knighting").

And so you get a theory that the real cause of men's problems is not the pursuit by feminists of liberal autonomy, but the sacrifice of men by social conservatives in the cause of chivalry or white knighting.

Which leads to some odd assumptions. For instance, there was a case recently in which a man, Leon Walker, was charged with computer hacking because he went into his wife's emails and found out that she was cheating on him.

It turns out that Walker had married a twice-divorced woman, who cheated on him with her second husband, the one who had beaten her up in front of her son. To a social conservative it all sounds dysfunctional, an example of social decline.

But that's not how it's read at The Spearhead. Why would the man marry such a woman in the first place? It must be, the reasoning goes, a product of social conservatives pushing men to sacrifice themselves as white knights for women:

He must have felt like the hero as he said his vows to her. It’s a role tailor-made for female fantasy – the white knight who sweeps in to save the day for a wayward woman. Finally, the right man to get her back on the right track and provide for her and her child. The Social Conservative types just eat this sort of sh*t up.

The same commenter then links to another example of white knighting that we social conservatives supposedly can't get enough of. It's the story of an American man who met a woman just after she'd had her first abortion. This woman was highly promiscuous and had approached six members of the football team to try and establish paternity of the child, but had failed to do so. The woman was last on the list of our white knight's possible list of marriage partners, but all the rest were already taken so he married her. After marrying, she cheated on him, hit him and lived an extravagant lifestyle, getting him into massive debt.

Does that sound like the social conservative vision of marriage to you? The fact is that it's about the opposite of what social conservatives would advise when it comes to marriage. But we're dealing with the logic of male separatism here. The logic of male separatism is that all women are unworthy of marriage; marriage cannot be in the interests of men; therefore, if social conservatives support marriage it's because of a chivalrous, white knighting desire to sacrifice men in order to rescue wayward women.

That's how a conservative nightmare is transformed by male separatists into a classic conservative marriage scenario.

But if separatism leads to such distortions, what's the alternative? The alternative is to understand that the Western political elite is a liberal one; that liberals believe in equal autonomy as the overriding aim of politics; and that feminists have campaigned to have equal autonomy applied to the lives of women.

How can women's lives be made autonomous? By allowing women to raise their children independently of men (through state welfare, no fault divorce laws, alimony and child support, paid maternal leave, assumption of female custody etc.); by female careerism (affirmative action, changes to school curricula, state subsidised childcare etc.); by delaying a commitment to marriage and children (a single girl lifestyle of casual relationships, travel and career); by promoting sexual "liberation" (women selecting for sex alone, just as men supposedly do, rather than for marriage or romantic love, which then "liberates" women to select hypergamously or crudely on the basis of markers of testosterone, such as risk-taking, thuggishness, violence).

All of this makes life more difficult for the average man seeking a long-term relationship in his 20s.

Therefore, the ultimate aim of a men's movement ought to be to successfully challenge the idea that autonomy is the ultimate aim of politics rather than, say, healthy relationships or an attractive ideal of womanhood and manhood.

Male separatism doesn't challenge the political orthodoxy. It responds to a female attempt to be autonomous of men with a male attempt to be autonomous of women. It makes the pursuit of autonomy less one-sided than it currently is, but it doesn't attempt to promote healthy, functional, interdependent, complementary relationships between men and women.

I don't believe that what most young men really want are Japanese robots or libido suppressing drugs. Nor is a politics based on the idea that there are absolutely no women worth having a relationship with likely to have great appeal. Separatism is a wrong turn for the men's movement.

310 comments:

  1. "Male separatism doesn't challenge the political orthodoxy."

    It does. I think the reason you aren't noticing this is because you have made incorrect observations of the West's political orthodoxy. You assume feminism promotes the same ideals for men and women and wants them to adopt similar behaviors. It doesn't.

    The evidence is in front of your nose. Just observe the rethoric of feminists and the feminist-dominated MSM. Yes, the female behaviors and choices you have described above are celebrated. But men who delay marriage are shamed for "slacking", "avoiding commitment" and are instructed to "man up". Single motherhood is glorified, single fatherhood is shunned. Spending time with your "bros" for whatever reason is ridiculed. Women, on the other hand, are never blamed for forming all-female social networks. Men who take advantage of sexual liberation are misogynist man whores and cads. Women who abort motherhood are empowered. Men who abandon fatherhood are "deadbeat dads". Men who leave their crummy marriages are entitled, heartless assholes. Women who do the same are, again, empowered and celebrated for it.

    One reason for all this is that feminism is a female supremacist movement. They "believe woman good, man bad". Very simple.

    The other obvious reason is that they don't accept male separatism. They shame it, criticize it and consider it a thread. Why? Because the feminist system doesn't want MGTOW and MRAs. It wants dutiful kitchen bitches and emasculated worker drones who dutifully sign up for marriage 2.0, get the LJBF treatment, and work as obedient worker drones in order to prop up the feminist system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the long run we're all dead but if we're lucky society will go on. If we promote separatism society cannot live. If a soldier goes to the front to protect his society and the society fails to reproduce itself then the soldier's efforts would have been in vain.

    We must assume it is a natural instinct to procreate and therefore its a natural instinct for men and women to be together. Separatism cannot therefore be a natural instinct and must be forced.

    If the big fear is that men and women will marry and then divorce after children, the focus then should be on divorce and not separatism. Even leftists are seeing divorce as a social evil and are encouraging greater "communication" between couples as a way to overcome this.

    Additionally assuming the very worst happens and that divorce occurs after children. The man is still free to marry again and many do, and he will still have contributed to society by having children who are at least relatively stable, more so than abandoned bastard children.

    Separatism might be dressed up as a legitimate response to social pressure but make no mistake it is opting out of your responsibility to society rather than your responsibility to women and is therefore is a selfish response.

    The only other argument is that by "going Galt" you're bringing society and women back to the table willing to offer greater concessions to men. However, if the left are as self destructive as the men going Galt are then why should they bother?

    Nobody today can claim ignorance and marry with naive hopes. Nonetheless neither should self serving behavior be dressed up as nobility. The crude fact is its convenient for many men never to marry, even in a perfect world. Now they can claim to have a greater pretence of moral legitimacy in not doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ok we can agree that Feminism is a female supremacist movement. However, just because this is promoted in the MSM doesn't mean that we have to listen to or agree with it. I don't. I have no problem spending time with men nor would I shun single fathers. If the men's movement shows how the mainstream media and feminism have biased the tables against men then that's great. It's where you go from there though that’s the issue.

    Just because feminism don't like separatism that doesn't make separatism good. I wouldn't be a woman's kitchen servant but nor would I consider permanent bachelorhood to be a reasonable response.

    Now lets be frank. We conservatives can say to you find a conservative girl and she’ll be less likely to divorce you. However, many Men’s rights advocates aren’t conservatives and they don’t want to marry a conservative girl. Its these people who are more likely to say that you’ll never find someone who won’t divorce you rather than the conservatives who are less likely to be in that position.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You assume feminism promotes the same ideals for men and women and wants them to adopt similar behaviors. It doesn't.

    It doesn't do so consistently, I agree. That's because it's assumed that men have deprived women of equal autonomy. Therefore, the political project is to maximise female, not male, autonomy.

    The fact is, too, that autonomy is not easily made consistent, regardless of what liberals claim.

    Who gets to autonomously do what they want and be what they want? If women want to do the hypergamous single girl thing in their 20s and then belatedly find a decent man to marry in their 30s, then men have to be made to go along with it to make it happen.

    If men instead pursue some other goals or aims, then female autonomy is no longer maximised.

    How do you resolve that? For a while it was simply assumed that men were there to prop up female autonomy. Feminists acted surprised when men didn't follow along as they were supposed to.

    In other words, the liberal project is misconceived. It requires the autonomy of some groups to be suppressed in order for the autonomy of other groups to be maximised. It does so by labelling some groups as dominant and therefore illegitimate in their current existence. Such groups lose their standing in the liberal moral universe.

    One of the positive effects of the early MRM was to highlight the ways in which men could not be considered privileged. That exposed a very deep fault line in the liberal attempt to deal with gender issues.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If the men's movement shows how the mainstream media and feminism have biased the tables against men then that's great. It's where you go from there though that’s the issue.

    Jesse, I think that's it exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. IME social conservatives emphasise the sinful and Fallen nature of both men and women, and are definitely not naive about the faults of women.

    There *are* men who are naive and over-idealistic about women. This tradition is much older than Liberalism and seems to have its roots in medieval notions of Romance and Courtly Love, turbo-charged by Victorian sentimentality towards women and children. That sentimentality had positive effects in the 19th century milieu, but is often inappropriate and dangerous in the 21st century. It does lead to some men being taken advantage of.

    I have a very good-hearted Australian friend who is unable to see the bad in people. This resulted in him having a girlfriend who turned out to be a prostitute. His tale would certainly support the MRA agenda (more so if he'd married her).

    ReplyDelete
  7. BTW I have never seen single fathers attacked in the media. You only get to be a single father if your wife abandons you AND your children, or is shown to be grossly unfit in divorce court.

    IME feminists in the UK ignore single fathers completely, except for the occasional foreign father (German, American or non-white) who 'steals' his children from the ex-wife by taking them abroad.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ''And what are men who reject relationships with women to do? The commenter above intends to spend his life playing computer games while waiting for foreigners to violently punish Western women.''

    Hollenhund liberalism is advancing at a rapid pace outside of the West and foreign women are started to get indoctrinated in liberalism. Foreigners are not coming to punish Western women if they themselves are changing. I live outside of the West and I'm seeing this.

    Jesse you talked about a soldier protecting his society. Well a soldier got jailed for shooting a terrorist when the jihadi terrorist gets free --- www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018228.html

    Is that the sign of a healthy society? Of a moral society? The rules of the game have changed. We have to start challenging liberalism at it's basics premises. I highly doubt that the few liberals who don't like divorce are against it because it's wrong. Rather they do it to display the ''Hypocrisy of traditionalist conservatives and how we are so much better then them!'' or because they love ''private, long-term relationships'' (while they also push polygamy, incest and 'open relationships').

    www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018160.html


    It's kind of like their obsession with ''gay marriage''. On one hand they say marriage is dead and on the other hand ''gay marriage'' is some human/civil right! Contradictory? Yes but when viewed in light that they despise traditional marriage then it makes sense. You should know that often leftists that dislike divorce support cohabitation, ''free love'' and are ''gender-neutral''.

    I agree with separation. Just not male separation. It has to be traditionalist conservative separation from liberalism instead.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not the commenter Mark was referring to, Elizabeth.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I know Hollenhund. I just wanted to inform you that liberalism is arriving rapidly in China, India, Brazil and other countries. Foreign women are changing.

    Instead of separating by gender like gamers are trying to do, which is futile since it doesn't challenge liberalism but is it's reaction (trying to creating a men's rights movement as a mirror to the women's rights movement), traditionalist conservatives should instead reject the system, segregate anc challenge the basics premises.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Separatism might be dressed up as a legitimate response to social pressure but make no mistake it is opting out of your responsibility to society rather than your responsibility to women and is therefore is a selfish response."

    Jesse, I doubt you can make a reasonable argument that men have such a responsibility towards a society which has completely weakened and devalued fatherhood.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Now lets be frank. We conservatives can say to you find a conservative girl and she’ll be less likely to divorce you. However, many Men’s rights advocates aren’t conservatives and they don’t want to marry a conservative girl."

    Definitely not in the current legal system, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Who gets to autonomously do what they want and be what they want? If women want to do the hypergamous single girl thing in their 20s and then belatedly find a decent man to marry in their 30s, then men have to be made to go along with it to make it happen."

    There are actually many demoralized loser betas willing to go along with that. The problem is that such women are only attracted to the biggest alphas, therefore they won't have successful relationships with such betas. They may "settle" with them as a last-ditch effort but they won't become happy wives.

    "If men instead pursue some other goals or aims, then female autonomy is no longer maximised. How do you resolve that?"

    I doubt it can be resolved. Autonomy merely means the freedom of choice. It's not a guarantee of desired outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've always found this little schism along conservative/religious lines a strange, but healthy, debate. While I myself am not conservative, I do not throw out religious ideas simply because they're religious.

    For example, if I were a believing man, I would say things look a lot like they're setting up for 'end times' considering the anti-religious and anti-God zeal of many of the most influential people in the world today...

    That said, there are a couple of things I want to point out that many of the conservative folk just haven't answered:

    "Why should men expose themselves to such legal and social risk?"

    "Why should men care AT ALL about a society that so obviously devalues them?"

    "What safeguards, social support, or other non-governmental systems do the conservative groups offer to men in order to overcome the bias in society?"

    Basically, what's in it for us, this getting married thing...? And If we do run in to trouble, what is "society" or the conservative groups out there going to do to help me balance the wildly sexist Family Law system?

    And essentially, conservatives have answered back "It's just the right thing to do, and you should do it."

    That's NOT an answer. That's an opinion.

    So where is the beef? What exactly do conservatives offer men except more shame and castigation?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The alternative is to understand that the Western political elite is a liberal one; that liberals believe in equal autonomy as the overriding aim of politics; and that feminists have campaigned to have equal autonomy applied to the lives of women.

    And yet this requires an unprincipled exception, which is that in order for women to obtain "equal autonomy", the man cannot have "equal autonomy". He has to pay, and pay, and pay. His commitment to the marriage is lifelong as a matter of law; her commitment is utterly transient, as the marriage (and her commitment to the man) can end the instant she is tired of the marriage and her husband.

    Male separatism doesn't challenge the political orthodoxy. It responds to a female attempt to be autonomous of men with a male attempt to be autonomous of women.

    This is a far more realistic and achievable goal than taking down the entire liberal edifice of seeking autonomy. Frankly, there's not a chance in hell of successfully challenging the idea that autonomy is the ultimate aim of politics. Male separatism is not what most men would choose in an ideal world, but it is an achievable goal in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "If we promote separatism society cannot live."

    Does liberal society deserve to live?

    HELL NO.

    You are fighting to preserve a liberal society that hates you and seeks to exploit you. This is stupid.

    I know, you want to fight for a traditional society, but that society does not exist and will never return. This is deluded.

    "Separatism cannot therefore be a natural instinct and must be forced."

    Not at all. Most men are de facto separated from women anyway.

    "Separatism might be dressed up as a legitimate response to social pressure but make no mistake it is opting out of your responsibility to society rather than your responsibility to women and is therefore is a selfish response."

    What responsibility do you have, as a traditionalist, for a liberal society that hates you and wants to exploit you? None. What responsibility do I, as a man, have to women who want (and have actually achieved as a matter of law) "autonomy"? None.

    If I have a responsibility to women, then they are not autonomous. What is totally unacceptable is that women should have all the benefits of "autonomy" and of tradition at the same time -- which is exactly what feminists want.

    And why should I accept responsibility for women, period? Why shouldn't I be "selfish"? In the traditional society, marriage was unquestionably in the "selfish" interest of men as well as women. Both parties got something out of it. Now that is no longer the case, and it is no surprise that men are recoiling from it.

    "The crude fact is its convenient for many men never to marry, even in a perfect world. Now they can claim to have a greater pretence of moral legitimacy in not doing so."

    There is no "pretense". It is always morally legitimate to refuse a voluntary personal association. It is even more legitimate to refuse an association that imposes vastly disparate burdens and responsibilities on one party (the man).

    ReplyDelete
  17. I had a long comment that was successfully posted but has since disappeared. Mark, did you delete it? If not, could you look in the spam bin and see if it somehow wound up there? It's really discouraging to see long comments get eaten.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, it was in the spam bin. A pity blogger doesn't allow people to opt out of that function.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Factory said,

    "What exactly do conservatives offer men except more shame and castigation?"

    See you guys look at Oprah and a feminist dominated divorce system and say "that's your society don't defend it". Conservatives don't accept that that is society but see it as an aberration that must be contested. Rather than joining in the fight you guys whinge, go home and masturbate.

    What does conservatism have to offer men? Manhood. Too much shaming language? Never in my life would I have thought I'd hear a man complain about "shaming language", that is a woman's complaint.

    If women are potentially irresponsible by nature then they need strong men to tell them to "knock it off". Rather than be and do that you want to go home and sulk.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ” Does that sound like the social conservative vision of marriage to you? The fact is that it's about the opposite of what social conservatives would advise when it comes to marriage.”

    [Seeing as how you’ve linked back to my comments, I’ll take this bait]

    Really!?!?

    Social conservative’s don’t go all giddy over those “nice guy’s” who willing accepted (supposedly) reformed sluts?

    I’ve witnessed it happening far to often to even try to count. I’ve seen men admonished to blame themselves for their wife’s infidelity. Many years ago, as a member of a very conservative church, I had two married women proposition me. One of them went on to have multiple (so I’ve been told) affairs on her husband, and when she was finally caught-out, her husband stood before the entire church congregation and apologized to her for his shortcomings and not meeting her needs.

    It always seems to relate back to the over-romanticized view of the story of Gomer and Hosea.

    But, maybe my observations have mislead me. How about you show me all the Social Conservative Christians who are advising young men to NOT marry reformed sluts? Show me where they admit that some women are beyond hope as marital partners? Show men where they openly recognize that promiscuous women seldom change from their promiscuous ways, and should therefore be avoided as potential wives?

    I’ve yet to have seen or read any such thing from Social Conservative Christian sources. All I’ve ever gotten from them is the admonition that men should follow the “lead” of Hosea and dutifully try to overcome the worst behaviors of women through acceptance and love. It has to be the worst of the female pedestalizing that I’ve seen.

    The stories of Leon Walker and the other former-white knight are now all too common. Woman have been both legal and socially “exonerated” for their sexual mischief, and the efforts to protect them from the normal (traditional) consequences of their chosen behaviors comes as much from the white knights on the right as it does from the gender-feminists on the left (not long ago, Laura Woods even protested that female sexual predators/pedophiles should neither be termed “rapists” nor punished).

    As a number of other posters have challenged – “What’s in it for men to marry? And, what help/protections are you Social Conservatives proposing to help them?”

    That fact that you cannot answer demonstrates that they are quite correct in their concerns.

    The way I see it, the problem with Soc Cons is that they are basically afraid to confront women and hold them personally accountable. Instead we consistently see the wish to shelter, protect, and “reform” them rather that allow them to face consequences.

    And, I realize that you personally may not be that way yourself, but far too many of your cohort are.

    And, for the record, I’ve been married 26 years, have three children – two daughters 25 and 22 - and an 18 year-old son. My oldest daughter is married, and I now have a grandson. I’m certainly no misogynist, but I am a realist. I would not want my son to marry blindly out of a misplaced sense of duty, either to some woman nor to society. I would not wish him, nor my grandson to become yet more cannon fodder in the hopes that their sacrifice will somehow help to rebuild our current society (a more rational argument could be made that every man that so “falls” only hastens the decline rather help to slow it down).

    I’ve read your blog frequently, and I recognize that you are a rather intelligent man. I would therefore expect a more compelling argument from you as to why Male separatism is a wrong turn. You seem to simply join in with both the liberal gender-feminists and the Social Conservatives in simply decrying men who refuse to go blindly along with their proscribed “fates”, without any cogent argument as to why they should.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The same commenter..."

    Check that "spam bin" for my reply. It posted for a few seconds, then disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jesse_7 - "Rather than joining in the fight you guys whinge, go home and masturbate.

    What does conservatism have to offer men? Manhood. Too much shaming language? Never in my life would I have thought I'd hear a man complain about "shaming language", that is a woman's complaint.

    If women are potentially irresponsible by nature then they need strong men to tell them to "knock it off". Rather than be and do that you want to go home and sulk."


    This is supposed to stand as a response to a serious question?

    You might as well admit that you cannot answer the question posed, and that there is nothing being offered.

    Weak! Very, very weak!

    ReplyDelete
  23. At the end of the day I have yet to read a seperatist who does not instantly strike me as a classic Omega.

    Real men don't care if the system is stacked against them because they can remain dominant in their relationships on the strength of their personality or their natural or learned Game.

    The only blokes threatening to take their bat and ball and go home are those who don't seem to have had much chance in the game in the first place.

    What the seperatists and many other MRA's don't understand is that it is not the bloke who has the most sex that is a winner in the evolutionary race, it is the bloke with the most children that he can be reasonably certain are his own.

    Anything else is just a contest for how many plastic bags or pill-lined wombs you can shoot into.

    ReplyDelete
  24. James - ”At the end of the day I have yet to read a seperatist who does not instantly strike me as a classic Omega.”

    Yawn! More shaming language. Well, I suppose if you are incapable of making meaningful and logical arguments then you are best off to take the approach favored by women and just try to shame them.

    So, James, I take it you don’t have any real, workable ideas either?

    ”Real men don't care…”

    How the Hell would YOU know what it is to be a “Real Man”?

    ReplyDelete
  25. ""So where is the beef? What exactly do conservatives offer men except more shame and castigation?""

    If a man is strong or has good game he can maintain the upper hand in any relationship.

    liberal MRAs seem to be complaining that the law doesn't make women lie down and submit to them in a relationship. You have to put some of your own work in.

    I know quite a few men happy inside modern marriages, mostly they just got lucky by getting a girl who was not too brainwashed nice and young or in some cases religious. You can shape them fairly well if that is the case.

    The others just had very strong personalities or very good game. The women they ended up choosing were not in their mid 30's and not sluts riding the cock conga line.

    General rule of thumb is simple, if you can't control your woman, find a new one. If enough men followed THAT rule society would change a hell of a lot quicker than everyone just going off to sulk on Xbox.

    ReplyDelete
  26. slwerner said...

    ""So, James, I take it you don’t have any real, workable ideas either?""

    I have one. Teach men not to take shit from women. Teach them that men and women are different, and that the major difference is that men are bigger stronger and more assertive than women and as such should nearly always be the dominant voice in a relationship.

    Teach men not to be little bitches, and fight against the forces in society that wish to make all men so.

    slwerner said...

    ""How the Hell would YOU know what it is to be a “Real Man”?""

    Take a guess bitch.

    The only thing the "Bat and Ball" brigade are doing currently is removing dead weight from the sexual market, but sadly they could drag down some good potential men into their little sulky world.

    You want an alternative? Stop bitching and learn to control a woman. Despite the obstacles of the modern world, it's not even that hard.

    Read up some of the Game sites for crying out loud it might give you a tip or two.

    "Manning up" doesn't mean serving women, only women think so. "Manning up" means taking control of your life and the lives of the people around you, making the world fit your image of what you want it to be rather than simply going along with the flow.

    But I am wasting my time, sulky little whingers like yourself get far too much pleasure out of whinging to ever stiop.

    ReplyDelete
  27. James - "General rule of thumb is simple, if you can't control your woman, find a new one. If enough men followed THAT rule society would change a hell of a lot quicker than everyone just going off to sulk on Xbox."

    The problem that you Soc Cons are afraid to consider is that there are now far more "good men" out there than there are "good women".

    the majority of men, while not perfect, would make good husbands and fathers; if only they COULD find a decent women.

    But while upwards of 50% of men are this way, only about 25-30% of the women in the western world are.

    There's a growing disparity between the available number of worthwhile women and the worthwhile men who would seek them.

    The biggest problem with you SocCons is your abject refusal to place the blame for the current societal ills on woman. Just like your natural allies, the gender-feminist, you invariably look to blame men instead.

    The real problems can mostly be traced back to the unbridling of women, and the subsequent “protections” afforded them so that they would not have to face the consequence of the choices they became free to make.

    Even most (young) male criminality stems from father-less homes – father-less, because women no longer had any need for the type of man who would be a good father. Female hypergamy, once unleashed, has lead to terrible imbalances within society. Stacking the Anti-family divorce courts so decidedly against men has only served to make it worse.

    You offer only the empty platitude of “man up”. What evidence do you offer that this alone will be successful even in a significant percentage of cases? Have you, yourself been successful this way? Personally, I’ve noticed that a good many of the men who offer up such “advice” are themselves the weakest of hen-pecked manginas in their own relationships. Thus, I tend to take such shallow rhetoric with a very large grain of salt.

    I’m still waiting for one of you to put up something substantive. Or, to at least try to do so. I’m beginning to suspect that the lack of such is simply because you (all) know that you cannot making any sort of compelling arguments to support your case. So, I guess we can expect more of the female-style attempts to “shame” instead?

    ReplyDelete
  28. James - ”Teach them that men and women are different, and that the major difference is that men are bigger stronger and more assertive than women and as such should nearly always be the dominant voice in a relationship.Teach them that men and women are different, and that the major difference is that men are bigger stronger and more assertive than women and as such should nearly always be the dominant voice in a relationship.”

    I take it you’ve never heard of the VAWA and other laws aimed at shifting the power back to women?

    I’ll just come out and tell you this James. I’m no wimp. I’m 6’1”, weigh 260 lbs (34 in” waist – it’s muscle weight) and even at age 48 I still bench 400 lbs. My wife goes 5’6”, 130.

    I’m no shrinking violet, and have developed plenty of confidence and swagger. Yet, the reality is that I can only “dominate” my wife to the extent that she is willing to be dominated. And, she has the force of law to back her up.

    Plenty a “manly man” has been chucked right out of his home (and often into the jailhouse) for overstepping what a woman would allow him.

    You’re a lot of tough talk, but little evidence. Most guys who call me things like “sulky little whingers” are just simply puissant wimps who can do so because they will never have to face me man-to-man.

    If all you gat are insults, then I have no respect for you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jesse wrote,

    "Rather than joining in the fight you guys whinge, go home and masturbate.

    What does conservatism have to offer men? Manhood."


    Wow. Haha, that should be a bumper sticker.

    That is one of the most powerful statements I've ever seen here or anywhere else on the web. Its confidence and strength proves its own point.

    Thanks, Jesse.

    ReplyDelete
  30. James - "Read up some of the Game sites..."

    No need. I learned how to "game" my wife long before they put that name to it. And, I do peruse such sites from time to time.

    They have some sound ideas, to be sure. But other than what can be utilized within marriage, most of it will not be a benefit to me - I never intend to be anything of a PUA. In fact, the advice I could really use is how to keep other women from coming on to me.

    Your attempts at shaming me are for naught and completely misguided.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mark, I think you and the separatists are looking at this problem wrongly.

    I don't think any man should have to marry. Whilst I agree, that a good marriage is as close to heaven as you can get on this earth, a bad marriage is also hell.

    Marriage itself is not the problem as I see it, rather the problem subsists in two components;

    1) The State's treatment of marriage, seeing it as some sort of arbitrary co-habitation of various types, a co-habitation based on the transient sentiments and yet it imposes permanent, and quite frequently, unjust obligations.

    2)The dearth of "quality women". After I started taking religion seriously in my early 20's, despite wanting to find a "good" woman, I couldn't find one. Perhaps it was my hunting ground "Melb Uni" but either a woman did not like me, or more often than not, I did not like them. It wasn't that I had impossible standards, it's just that many of the women I met had serious character flaws. (This was nearly 20 years ago, the problem is worse now).

    I don't blame many men for "opting" out of marriage simply because the terms which are on offer are quite atrocious. I mean would you want to get into a car where the brakes are guaranteed to fail 50% of the time? The other problem of course is children. Who would knowingly want to expose them to the material risk of divorce?

    As for the mens rights crowd, I admit a lot the individuals there appear to have "issues". The whole sexbot advocacy is nauseating, its proponents, nerd boys in the extreme.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "In fact, the advice I could really use is how to keep other women from coming on to me."

    Having read your comments at various sites for some time now slwerner.. It's not hard to see why.
    You ain't no pushover! :D

    Hope you and your family had a great Christmas..

    ReplyDelete
  33. slwerner,

    You've used as an example of social conservative white knighting the case of some American churches.

    I've read others also using these churches as examples. So maybe there do exist some churches in America encouraging young men to marry undeserving, untrustworthy women.

    But I'm not familiar with anything like that here in Australia.

    You asked for examples of social conservatives warning men about such women. Well, recently an Australian conservative blogger, The Social Pathologist, ran a series of data driven articles showing that the more men a woman had slept with prior to marriage the more likely it was the marriage would end in divorce. The articles were republished across the internet including at my own site here.

    I've also written many articles critising the trend for women to use their 20s for casual relationships and the damage that then does to successful family formation.

    ReplyDelete
  34. a good marriage is as close to heaven as you can get on this earth, a bad marriage is also hell.

    Yes, that's true.

    I mean would you want to get into a car where the brakes are guaranteed to fail 50% of the time?

    The latest data I've seen shows that the general failure rate is 40% and falling, and the rate of risk doesn't have to be nearly this high; for instance, if you wait till you're over 21 to marry, if you have a good education, if you stay out of the lowest income bracket etc. the divorce rate drops sharply.

    A college educated white woman in America who marries at age 25, for example, has a 20% risk of divorce. And when I put my own details into a divorce calculator it gave me a 10% risk of divorce.

    Having said all that, I agree that the rate of divorce needs to be reduced as one measure to restore confidence in marriage as an institution.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Mark Richardson..."the idea that all women are so unworthy that[marital] relationships are simply impossible"... You imply that, OBVIOUSLY,merely a minority of women are so unworthy that[marital]relationships are impossible.I have in mind a set of traits which render a woman unworthy of a marital relationship.APPARENTLY,so do you.Will you name a few?Please?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Traits which render a woman unsuitable for marriage?

    Other readers can add to the list, but I'll make a start.

    a) I'd be wary of women who are promiscuous.

    b) I'd be wary of women who seem to lack a moral core in their dealings with others.

    c) I'd be wary of women who are excessively hypergamous (it's normal to a degree in women, but you meet some types who are obviously too motivated by the material aspects of marriage, i.e. they are gold diggers).

    d) I'd be wary of women who don't value marriage as an institution.

    e) I'd be wary of women who have been overly exposed to feminist theory at university and who have internalised it in terms of their identity and values.

    f) I'd be wary of women who showed excessive signs of entitlement, i.e. a lack of a sense of reciprocity in relationships.

    g) I'd be wary of women who did not accept a masculine/feminine dynamic in personal relationships.

    h) I'd be wary of women who treated the idea of divorce too casually.

    i) I'd be wary of women with mental health issues.

    j) I'd be wary of women who respond to the physical side of relationships coldly or with distate.

    k) I'd be wary of women who express no desire to have children.

    l) I'd be wary of women who are financially irresponsible.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Chuck it in Mark, the west is going down the gurgler, when was the last time you went past Hoddle Street and ventured in to Footscray? I can tell you African immigrants are having up to 12 children each while the middle class SWPL barely have one.

    Its an admirable rear guard action, typical British stoicism but keeping a stiff upper lip and closing your eyes and doing it for England aint gonna work.

    Men are self interested agents and if theres nothing in it for them why should they bother.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ah, Kathy, I’m flattered as always.

    I probably seemed that I was doing a bit too much bragging, but, while I don’t know James, I know his “type”, and having done this dance many times, I was anticipating that hid next move was going to be to double-down on his blame-and-shame tactics and come back at me with the standard “you’re just bitter cause you can’t get women – you live in your parents basement and play video games” combo. I was just looking to head that off.

    I didn’t get into it before because Bloggers been eating my longer posts, but what James offered about be physically dominant over ones wife is NOT “Game”, but simple bullying. I do hope that no young men will actually buy his advice to use their size and strength to intimidate women into submission.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Mark Richards - "But I'm not familiar with anything like that here in Australia."

    My general impressions have long been that Australians tend to be more rugged and masculine that what many American and British man have become. And, no, it's not because of those Crocodile Dundee movies. Anyone who likes to play Rugby has got to be tough, and even though Australians living in the states are relatively few in number, I do encounter an fairly high number lifting weights at the gym. Frankly, I believe I personally identify more readily with them than I do with most of my "wussified" American counterparts.

    That said, i would direct you back to my point about about Soc Cons needing to learn to hold women accountable, and to demand that they (also) must change their ways in order to become worthy marital prospects.

    I'm not so much a MGTOW type so much as I do believe that men need to become the ones who hold-out for the "right one".

    Today's young women are far too likely to be first promiscuous, then become increasingly desperate to marry (so as to lock some poor sap in to being their meal-ticket), and are far too likely to feign love, respect, and desire for a man to lure the unsuspecting "nice guy" (those "nice guys" being way too likely to fall for a sob-story and trying to be her white knight).

    It's long been said that knowledge is power, and young men's collective lack of knowledge is rendering them powerless to protect their own (long-term)interests.

    This is why I'm all for telling the stories, and calling out those who would encourage men to either rescue wayward women, or to try to shame them into marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ok, so let's take as given your notion that men who refuse to marry should be punished in some way. What would you suggest?

    Should men who refuse to marry be imprisoned for some period of time, or merely fined / taxed? Perhaps given a choice between wearing a scarlet "B" and prison time?

    Before you throw your hands up in astonishment, that's where you are heading with this kind of "men must marry" talk that social conservatives/traditionalists are so fond of.

    So what's it going to be, sir? Prison or fines for bachelors? Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mark Richardson:

    Traits which render a woman unsuitable for marriage?

    What? You dare post such a woman-hating, mysogynist notion that there could be women unsuitable for marriage?

    Maybe we can get "Josh" aka "Thordaddy" to drop in from the "thinking" Housewife's blog to inform you that this makes you a "homo". There's a good, thinking, traditionalist argument...

    Other readers can add to the list, but I'll make a start

    Seriously, sarcasm aside, this is the first posting I'm aware of where you've acknowledged that "just marrying a woman" might not work, that some women are unfit for marriage to a good man, and that there are traits/habits/clues to this.

    Maybe you can take a look at Dalrock's posting on interviewing a potential wife. Part one is here:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/interviewing-a-perspective-wife-part-i-should-you-open-a-position/

    ReplyDelete
  42. m) I'd be wary of any woman who claimed that "every girl has to go through her slut phase", and I'd be wary of any woman who upon hearing such words just smiled or nodded along.

    ReplyDelete
  43. ''Today's young women are far too likely to be first promiscuous, then become increasingly desperate to marry (so as to lock some poor sap in to being their meal-ticket), and are far too likely to feign love, respect, and desire for a man to lure the unsuspecting "nice guy" (those "nice guys" being way too likely to fall for a sob-story and trying to be her white knight).''

    That's becoming less and less frequent in my circles. Good men are seeking out good women and vice-versa (we're all young Christians).

    With the Internet it's becoming more apparent these stories, what's going on and so we communicate, debate and transmit more easily.

    The only bad thing would be Barack Obama (and liberals in general) regulating the Internet --- www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4619

    ReplyDelete
  44. Chuck it in Mark, the west is going down the gurgler

    Anon, that's one possible outcome. If politics stays as it is now, it's the likely outcome.

    Remember, though, if even 10% of the middle-class broke with the current orthodoxy, politics would change.

    Is the grip of liberalism weakening? Yes, slowly. It still commands the political heights, so policy has not yet changed.

    But think back to the way things were in the 1970s. That was the era of the true believers; a generation of young Westerners who adopted left-liberalism as a kind of substitute religion.

    In the 1980s left-liberalism was so strong that liberals were able to impose an atmosphere of political correctness.

    In the 1990s, cracks appeared. Right-liberalism became more influential. The internet opened up contact between traditionalists.

    More recently the men's rights movement has grown from nothing to a real, if politically inchoate, movement. There are political currents forming now that are likely to emerge as new movements in the years ahead.

    Even if there's doubt about the outcome, doesn't it still make sense for people to put in a few hours a week as part of an internet community? It's a low cost activity, it can be politically interesting, and it does, at least, give the situation a chance to develop.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "If even 10% of the middle-class broke with the current orthodoxy, politics would change."

    The middle class lives on the largess of the government, it aint going to happen.

    The war has been lost, the tipping point has been reached, the only option left is fighting pitched battles in segregated communities.

    Look to the churches Mark even these pillars have fallen for the false gods of ecumenism and modernity.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ""Your attempts at shaming me are for naught and completely misguided.""

    Do you seriously think anyone cares if you are "shamed" or not?

    In my personal experience the type of male who advocates "withdrawl" does so because he is finding it difficult to compete or because he has never been in the race. Apologies if that is not the case.

    ""I’ll just come out and tell you this James. I’m no wimp. I’m 6’1”, weigh 260 lbs (34 in” waist – it’s muscle weight) and even at age 48 I still bench 400 lbs. My wife goes 5’6”, 130.""

    1. No-one believes personal stats put up online. You could be as honest as the day is long and people still will not believe you.

    2. If you seriously thought I meant physical intimidation as a means for controlling the direction of a relationship then you are incorrect, as you point out it does not work, at least not in the long term and def not in the society in which we live.

    You become dominant in a relationship by taking the driving seat. One of my mates from way back is a tiny, skinny man yet I have never seen him out of that seat, even when the women he was with could easily have over-powered him.

    ""Yet, the reality is that I can only “dominate” my wife to the extent that she is willing to be dominated. And, she has the force of law to back her up.""

    Exactly. And if you cannot get in the driving seat without crossing the line then the only choice is to find another woman who you can.

    ""You’re a lot of tough talk, but little evidence.""

    Right back at ya.

    ""If all you gat are insults, then I have no respect for you.""

    Was not really looking for any.

    ""Soc Cons needing to learn to hold women accountable, and to demand that they (also) must change their ways in order to become worthy marital prospects.""

    Of course.

    Any woman who will not change to make herself more marriagable to her bloke deserves to get dumped. Men need to get as selective about who they marry as women used to be. We need to start looking at women as a means to an ends, that end being the furthering of our biological legacy.

    Any woman who is not interested in kids and is open about that should not find it easy to get a defacto, let alone a husband.

    It seems strange saying this to a seperatist, but women are not all-powerful, men have options, they just need to be informed about them.

    And even in this case the problem is almost totally with middle class men in Australia. The rougher blokes don't seem to have many problems in this area. If you block out the lowest-low public housing leagues from consideration they may have a lower divorce rate than their "betters" coupled with a huge defacto rate as many men find they can get everything they want out of a woman without marriage, no matter how much they might want it.

    In other words, the situation is no-where near as dire as you and other seperatists believe it to be.

    And why is such a vocal seperatist married? Or are you divorced?

    ReplyDelete
  47. The middle class lives on the largesse of the government

    Or vice versa.

    It's difficult to know what can be achieved. We have to see how politics plays out in coming years.

    Things can change. In the 1970s it seemed as if the communist bloc would be around for generations to come. It was regarded as a real challenge to Western power. But it didn't last.

    A liberal order doesn't satisfy everybody. Not everyone wants to live in a polyglot suburb. Not everyone wants to experience coarsened relations between the sexes. Not everyone wants soulless art and architecture. Not everyone appreciates the ever diminishing place of the churches. Not everyone wants to be tagged as an oppressor for being white or male or heterosexual.

    Liberalism is always throwing up waves of opportunity for organising resistance. It's just that we have to start catching some of those waves.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "what James offered about be physically dominant over ones wife is NOT “Game”, but simple bullying."

    Ugh....

    I say "be dominant" and you hear "beat up the missus"? Little sick.

    wrong, wrong, wrong and you know the reasons why, primarily because it doesn't work, and probably wouldn't work all that well even if there was no State for the woman to run to.

    If you cannot be in the driving seat of a relationship without hitting a woman, you probably should go your own way because it's plain you have no idea what you are doing.

    Simply taking the lead [and the responsibilities that come with it] IS being dominant.

    You seem very hot on the idea of men refusing to marry. Might I ask why you are married since you refer to your wife in the present tense?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Factory asks:

    "Why should men expose themselves to such legal and social risk?"

    To pass on their genetic line, the first priority of any living organism.

    "Why should men care AT ALL about a society that so obviously devalues them?"

    They shouldn't. They should correctly identify the society in which they live as being a liberal one at odds with their personal interests and reject it.

    HOW they should do this is the question under debate, is it better to remove oneself from the meat market completely? Or are you simply more selective and spend your life making sure not to lose the upper hand.

    The latter is much harder than the former, yet I think it would be more popular to men as a whole. Biology again.

    "What safeguards, social support, or other non-governmental systems do the conservative groups offer to men in order to overcome the bias in society?"

    None, would you like to help build some?

    ""Basically, what's in it for us, this getting married thing...?""

    Refer to 1.

    ""And If we do run in to trouble, what is "society" or the conservative groups out there going to do to help me balance the wildly sexist Family Law system?""

    Nothing, currently you have to handle it on your own.

    This sort of approach puts me in mind of two men standing at a ravine, one says "we should build a bridge here" the other then demands to know where the bridge is and why the bridge is not already there.

    ""And essentially, conservatives have answered back "It's just the right thing to do, and you should do it.""

    The above answers and other answers like them have been givin many times by Mark in different forms on this blog over the years, you should stop in more often.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous said...

    The middle class lives on the largess of the government, it aint going to happen.


    In tax circles it is known as "churn".

    Middle class welfare is mostly paid by the middle class to the middle class. People are mostly getting their own money back as the gift of government.

    This is of course good for government as it makes the middle classes beholden on them and less likely to complain.

    ReplyDelete
  51. slwerner,

    Perhaps you can lead by example and encourage your acolytes to not marry by divorcing your wife.

    You seem to be taking shots at people who aren't on this site. The Church members who made the man humiliate himself in front of his Church for his wife's failings. The "white knights" who just say marry anyone, preferably the more misguided the better, or the feminists who say we should marry the 30 pluses whenever they decide they want the commitment. Take your arguments up with those people and leave your hysteria off these pages. Too much shaming language?

    Mark and the commenters on this blog have defended none of those positions. What precisely should be done with women is a serious question, it has been addressed by this site many times and it will continue to be so discussed. It wasn't so long ago on this site we were hearing complaints from women that every criticism was directed specifically at them. This article was about men's attitudes and whether advocating a permanent break from women, something you yourself have not done but which other MRA's advocate, was a good idea or not. This post says its not a solution and I agree with it.

    Women have an entitlement culture. They want a man when they want him and to be rid of him just as easily if that becomes convenient. You can't marry this kind of woman. Woman have to be weaned from this idea, through persuasion or punishment, to act more responsibly. We agree on that? That is a serious discussion, whilst in comparison arguments about sexbots and permanent separatism isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  52. James said,

    "This sort of approach puts me in mind of two men standing at a ravine, one says "we should build a bridge here" the other then demands to know where the bridge is and why the bridge is not already there."

    Precisely.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Theres a great tradition of seperatism, if anything the West was built upon it, Augustine being its champion.

    "Or vice versa."
    "In tax circles it is known as churn."

    Take away the useless bureaucracy and their is no middle class.

    James, most seperatists actually do very well with women, you have the bitter fellas who have fallen afoul of women but by and large all the PUAs going around are seperatists. Just casually browsing the web most of these guys are solidly middle class Alphas.

    ReplyDelete
  54. ''It's difficult to know what can be achieved. We have to see how politics plays out in coming years.''

    While politics is a great medium for change politics cannot be changed if the worldview of the population is not changed.

    It's a great opportunity for traditionalist conservatives that the West is now destroyed. We should focus on challenging liberalism on it's ideas (equality, 'progress', etc), rejecting liberalism in our daily lives through separate communities and on rebuilding the West.

    Politics can change but it only changes when the worldview that supports it changes.

    ReplyDelete
  55. ''Traits which render a woman unsuitable for marriage?

    Other readers can add to the list, but I'll make a start.

    a) I'd be wary of women who are promiscuous.

    b) I'd be wary of women who seem to lack a moral core in their dealings with others.

    c) I'd be wary of women who are excessively hypergamous (it's normal to a degree in women, but you meet some types who are obviously too motivated by the material aspects of marriage, i.e. they are gold diggers).

    d) I'd be wary of women who don't value marriage as an institution.

    e) I'd be wary of women who have been overly exposed to feminist theory at university and who have internalised it in terms of their identity and values.

    f) I'd be wary of women who showed excessive signs of entitlement, i.e. a lack of a sense of reciprocity in relationships.

    g) I'd be wary of women who did not accept a masculine/feminine dynamic in personal relationships.

    h) I'd be wary of women who treated the idea of divorce too casually.

    i) I'd be wary of women with mental health issues.

    j) I'd be wary of women who respond to the physical side of relationships coldly or with distate.

    k) I'd be wary of women who express no desire to have children.

    l) I'd be wary of women who are financially irresponsible.''

    Nice list Mark Richardson.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "James, most seperatists actually do very well with women"

    That may be true, but just judging from my own personal experiences I just hear a lot of whining.

    "Take away the useless bureaucracy and their is no middle class"

    A lot less of them I agree, but as a whole I would say that the majority of Australia's "Middle classes" outside the public sector do contribute to the economy, and would do so a lot more if they were allowed to keep their own money.

    "Theres a great tradition of seperatism, if anything the West was built upon it, Augustine being its champion."

    Aaaagh! Now THAT'S an argument!

    And pretty much uncounterable as well, the west DOES have a seperatist tradition, if you count monasticism.

    Which raises all sorts of questions about the massive rise in the number of monastaries in the late Roman era just as the civilisation was collapsing.

    Perhaps seperatism is a societies natural response to collapse? Is that the bow you are drawing?

    Regardless I don't see it as a viable tactic for either making our society less bad on a collective level, or as a personal taste, either way you are opting out of the game.

    It all comes down to identity, as most things do. So we all have to ask ourselves, does gender trump everything? Even the reproductive urge? Even faith? Even nationality?

    I want to make the lot of men better because it will benefit me and also my society. I feel as a member of my ethno-cultural community that I have a responsibility to at least have a go at slamming on the brakes before we drive ourselves off the cliff.

    I also want to make sure my genes are in the next generation to continue the chain left to me by my ancestors.

    Seperatism cannot fulfill that last urge, and since it is one of the most powerful of all I think it will limit its appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  57. James - ” I say "be dominant" and you hear "beat up the missus"? Little sick.”

    Let me remind you of what it was you DID write:

    ”the major difference is that men are bigger stronger and more assertive than women and as such should nearly always be the dominant voice in a relationship.”

    Your word, James. Are you going to try to deny that you posted them? Why even include ”bigger” and”stronger” if you didn’t mean them as the means to achieve dominance.

    ” And why is such a vocal seperatist married? Or are you divorced?”

    I’m not a ”vocal separatist”, I’m one who advocates for men to NOT let their emotions, or the expectations/demands of others drive them into marriage.

    And yes, I’m still married (what exactly did you think ” And, for the record, I’ve been married 26 years…” meant? Is your reading comprehension no better than your inability to offer up little more than insults and the parroting back of what some one else says first?

    James - ”Apologies if that is not the case.”

    Spare me your all too obvious insincerity.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "I say "be dominant" and you hear "beat up the missus"? Little sick."

    James, I've tried to post my response to you several time, but it keeps vanishing.

    Perhaps Mark will dig a copy out?

    ReplyDelete
  59. James, Jesse_7:

    Given your snide remarks in asking me if I’m divorced, and why don’t I get divorced, it occurs to me that I haven’t asked if either of you two “Damn the divorce torpedo’s, full speed ahead into marriage young man” guys are actually married yourselves?

    James,

    I wondering how you miss something so obvious as the fact that by trying to sell single young men on marriage by encouraging them to learn “Game” will like result in more of them simply becoming PUA’s.

    Using “Game” will help in a marriage, but it is no panacea, and requires a good bit of continual effort.

    It’s not that I’m in any way advocating it (just pointing it out because you “traditionalist” types have such heavy blinders on), but the cold hard reality is that given the state of modern Marriage 2.0 and the anti-male courts, a man can do better by NOT marrying.

    I case you’ve some failed to grasp it, men CAN father children without being married to the mother. And, what’s more, if he doesn’t marry her, he will likely remain in a better financial situation. The amount he will be responsible for in terms of child support will (in most cases) be less that what a married man will spend between the costs of raising the child and the wife’s expectations and demands.

    And, he can live with the mother of the child, and fulfill the same role as a father, without signing away his financial rights via marriage. Even if the relationship breaks up, it would be no different that divorce in terms of his access to his child – and without the liabilities typically “owed” to an ex-wife.

    Plus, having “Game”, the same guy can have “access” to many women, should he so chose.

    Everything you advocate “for” marriage is actually an even better argument against marriage.

    Mark’s list, while very good, could just as well be used to find the right woman to live in sin with.

    All that you are really left with is the appeal to doing the “right thing”. And, of course the blame-and-shame tactics that you traditionalist share with your feminist contemporaries.

    ReplyDelete
  60. slwerner instead of faulting ''traditionalists/social conservatives'' as the equivalent of feminists (which is relativist and liberal in essence) understand that Christianity itself has been corrupted by liberalism as well to an extent.

    Stop blaming conservative traditionalists and concentrate on the rebuilding of the West and on creating separate communities that reject liberalism. More and more conservative traditionalists are moving in this seperation/segregation direction.

    If you believe gamers to be different from liberals you are dead wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Sorry I meant separation/segregation.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Elizabeth Smith - ”Stop blaming conservative traditionalists and concentrate on the rebuilding of the West”

    In order to do that, the institution of marriage must be restored (first).

    Neither you, nor James, nor Jesse_7 seem willing to acknowledge that several posters have issued a very sincere challenge to Traditionalist, Social Conservatives, and Christians (I’m going to lump you all together in one term for simplicity – “trads”) – What are you doing to help and ensure protections for men who would marry?

    This is a very serious and fundamental question. James and Jesse_7 respond with insults (perhaps because they have no real answer?), and offer empty platitudes such as “take control” and “use Game”.

    The basic issue is never addressed by Trads. And, I would add, in that Trads will not commit to making legal changes, you are tacitly supporting the status quo. That is, you are supporting the very system that Feminists have worked to put in place. The steady decline in marriage rates (as published by the Marriage Project) is directly attributable to the decidedly anti-male divorce laws which feminists have demanded and gotten from governments.

    Carefully selecting “quality” women, taking charge in the relationship, and even using “game” can help reduce the likelihood of divorce; but, none of these provides any guarantees.

    [Bloggers been consistently eating my longer posts, so I’m going to break it up here]

    ReplyDelete
  63. I'm not Australian, nor am I conservative, but I'm finding this discussion to be humorous and entertaining. There are MRM-sympathetic sites that link to this one, which is how I found it.

    I sense that a number of commenters here are from countries other than Australia (the US in particular) where conditions are more difficult; however, I suspect your land of 'Abby Winters' has its own challenges. And I very much agree with Höllenhund and slwerner on the state of Western women and marriage (writing as a never-married fellow in his late 40s).

    Finally, re: Mark R's list of items a) through l), how many of us can name women who DON'T have *any* of those characteristics?

    ReplyDelete
  64. And, since the possibility, and indeed, increasing probability of divorce still looms for every man who would marry, the only tangible way to make the risks for men more palatable is going to be to reform the divorce laws.

    Yet Trads have not, and seemingly will not make any efforts towards do so (some do pay lip-service).

    The challenge to Trads from the MRA have long been “tells us what you will do to help men?” and, for just as long the answer has been “Nothing”.

    Instead all Trads ever seem to do is hurl insults and tell men to “Man Up”.

    It’s NOT helpful. And, it’s serving to widen a chasm that needn’t exist.

    So, the next question to Trads becomes “why will you not help make fundamental reforms?”

    Would you care to offer your thoughts on why Trads will not actually help most men?

    ReplyDelete
  65. looks like Blogger ate the first part of my response to Elizabeth

    ReplyDelete
  66. [I'm reposting the first part of my response to Elizabeth, broken down into two parts. sorry for it ending up out of proper order]

    Elizabeth Smith - ”Stop blaming conservative traditionalists and concentrate on the rebuilding of the West”

    In order to do that, the institution of marriage must be restored (first).

    Neither you, nor James, nor Jesse_7 seem willing to acknowledge that several posters have issued a very sincere challenge to Traditionalist, Social Conservatives, and Christians (I’m going to lump you all together in one term for simplicity – “trads”) – What are you doing to help and ensure protections for men who would marry?

    This is a very serious and fundamental question. James and Jesse_7 respond with insults (perhaps because they have no real answer?), and offer empty platitudes such as “take control” and “use Game”.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The basic issue is never addressed by Trads. And, I would add, in that Trads will not commit to making legal changes, you are tacitly supporting the status quo. That is, you are supporting the very system that Feminists have worked to put in place. The steady decline in marriage rates (as published by the Marriage Project) is directly attributable to the decidedly anti-male divorce laws which feminists have demanded and gotten from governments.

    Carefully selecting “quality” women, taking charge in the relationship, and even using “game” can help reduce the likelihood of divorce; but, none of these provides any guarantees.

    ReplyDelete
  68. gdgm+ - "I suspect your land of 'Abby Winters'..."

    I had to look that up. You could have put an NSFW warning with that, BTW.

    I give the Aussies that their less emasculated than are most American men, but the problems born of feminism are spreading world-wide.

    In that they are still in a better position to achieve meaningful reforms in regard to such issues as divorce law (as I recall, sometime back they Australia was actually considering a law requiring paternity testing at birth to help cut down on the paternity fraud crisis), the fact that Australian Trads won't "take charge" and try to do so is actually rather disconcerting.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "I give the Aussies that their less emasculated than are most American men, but the problems born of feminism are spreading world-wide."

    Upon reflection, I realized that I've been missing something that should have been quite obvious. In that these Trads here are Australian, it’s quite logical that they should not hesitate to throw wave after wave of young men into the fray, in the faint hopes that some will succeed and keep society afloat. And, of course they would shame those young men forward, telling them that “real men” wouldn’t have any fear.

    They have historical president to base their stratgy on.

    The marital crisis front is simply their new Gallipoli. Duh!

    ReplyDelete
  70. slwlerner wrote,

    "And, he can live with the mother of the child, and fulfill the same role as a father, without signing away his financial rights via marriage. Even if the relationship breaks up, it would be no different that divorce in terms of his access to his child – and without the liabilities typically “owed” to an ex-wife."

    Why not just have a Christian wedding minus the court ceremony?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Bartholomew - "Why not just have a Christian wedding minus the court ceremony?"

    I've been saying as much for a long time now. Some time back, I even got (American Traditionalist and staunch Catholic) Luara Woods to visit the idea. They are sometime referred to as “Covenant Marriages”.

    But, it's not so cut-n-dried.

    There are still he legal aspects of entering into any union identified as "marriage" (even Common Law Marriage), as it still leaves a crack for the (anti-)Family Courts to pry their way in.


    One of the recurring themes you will find in both gender-feminist and Social Conservative ideologies is the idea that woman are to be protected at all times (and, often, at all costs).

    One poster recently put a name to it - ” the pedestalization movement: (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/are-men-morally-obligated-to-marry/#comment-4253).

    As such, the courts WILL be looking to protect women’s interests in the breakup of any marital union. And, even women who enter into a Covenant Marriage will, in the event of a break-up of the union, revert back to the power of the state to ensure that they get what they feel entitled to.

    Another avenue worth exploring is European-style private marriage contracts, in which the details of marital obligations, and even divisions upon divorce are spelled out.

    The first thing that needs to happen is to convince the Trads that Marriage 2.0 needs to be reformed.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Something tells me slwerner that had you lived a 100 years ago you would have advocated for men not to marry because divorce was nearly impossible and so a man had a chance to get stuck up with a feminist harpy and be miserable his whole life.

    There were just as many men advocating for an easy divorce as women.

    The truth is that most MRAs don't even want any return to the traditional society, they just want to have no obligations whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  73. slwerner,

    In Australia, at least, de facto marriages are no solution for men. If you are in a relationship with a woman and have a child with her, you are as legally vulnerable as the man who officially marries.

    And as de facto marriages break up more frequently, you are worse off overall.

    You ask what traditionalists have done about the marriage laws. The truth is that we are in no stronger a position to change these laws than the men's rights movement. The problem is not a lack of desire to change the laws, but simply a lack of political influence.

    We are working to increase this influence, just as the men's movement is.

    Elizabeth wrote earlier that political change often happens through changing people's ideas. That's true when it comes to the marriage laws.

    Why are the laws so biased toward women? In part, because Western society has set itself the goal of maximising female autonomy. If women are to be truly self-determining, then it's necessary for women to be able to determine at any time who they will live with and to be free to raise their children without being dependent on a man.

    It's true that this violates men's autonomy, but liberalism has tagged us as a dominant, privileged group, which means we don't have the same moral standing as women.

    The men's movement has done some good work in opposing the idea of men as a privileged group. I've done that as a traditionalist as well, but I've gone one step further, by challenging the idea that autonomy is always the key good.

    Why not make family stability a key aim? Or complementary, interdependent relationships? Or the long-term viability of a society?

    If autonomy remains the overriding good, then the political class won't be too fussed by a high divorce rate. They will think, as the Chief Justice of the Family Court in Australia, Alastair Nicholson, put it some years ago, that a high divorce rate is part of the "natural progression of society".

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous - ” Something tells me slwerner…”

    Ah, another poster with no real arguments to make who can only seek to mischaracterize me.

    ” The truth is that most MRAs don't even want any return to the traditional society”

    And this would relate to the issue of men needing assurance of protection when entering into marriage how?

    So, have you got anything other than ad hominem and tangential generalizations to throw at me?

    I’ve been wait for one of you Trads to actually come up with suggestions about what you would be willing to do restore the institution of marriage. But apparently none of you have anything worth offering, and simply do as your feminist counter-parts do when confronted with arguments that they cannot answer.

    It still amazes me that Trads cannot see the many ways that they are just like feminists.

    Let me give a quick list. Pedistalize women and make excuses for the bad behaviors. Seek to always blame men, first and foremost, for all societal ills. Demand that men be the one who “change”. Support anti-male legal frameworks, then support them when they are the status quo. And, of course, base most of their response to men seeking equal protection and provision under the law upon “shaming language”, mischaracterizations, and generalizations. (of course, I’m sure that I’ve over-looked some other examples)

    ReplyDelete
  75. I’m going to include the words of another commentator, who tried to find common ground with Trads, who expresses his frustration much more eloquently than I can:

    Brendan -

    It’s finally clarified for me how fundamentally useless traditionalists are for men in today’s culture, really. I’ve tried dialoguing with and understanding you all for some time now and it always seems to come back to the same basic problem for me: traditionalists prefer nostalgia to real solutions for today’s men, and, as such, will support current legal inequalities and/or vote in favor of more legal inequalities (as you argue for here), as long as they fit into a nostalgic traditionalist social agenda — again, regardless of the actual social and legal fabric men live in today. (http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/12/a-logical-outcome-of-feminist-absurdity/)”

    ReplyDelete
  76. Mark Richardson – ”In Australia, at least, de facto marriages are no solution for men. If you are in a relationship with a woman and have a child with her, you are as legally vulnerable as the man who officially marries.”

    I don’t how Australian law differs, but, in America (Canada, the UK, etc.) the man who marries contractually gives up half of all he has accumulated prior to marriage, assumes half of any debt a woman brings to the marriage, will be liable for half of any debt she accrues during the marriage, will often be liable for her financial maintenance upon the dissolution of the marriage, and will owe her half of any retirement investment income he has – including that which he amasses after the marriage. A man who doesn’t marry is liable only for child-support (based on the same set of calculations as if married).

    Does Australian law shield men from the liabilities imposed upon American men who marry?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Mark Richardson – ”You ask what traditionalists have done about the marriage laws. The truth is that we are in no stronger a position to change these laws than the men's rights movement. The problem is not a lack of desire to change the laws, but simply a lack of political influence.”

    I’d be more inclined to agree if you could show men where traditionalists (Christians, Conservative, Republicans, etc.) have ever stated any desire to make such legal changes.

    Can you point me to some who have?

    MR – ”Why not make family stability a key aim? Or complementary, interdependent relationships? Or the long-term viability of a society?”

    Instead of asking me why not support things that I do already support, how about some suggestions about how they can be achieved [cue James and Jesse_7 to regurgitate their “man up” platitudes]?

    MR - ” Elizabeth wrote earlier that political change often happens through changing people's ideas. That's true when it comes to the marriage laws.”

    Laura Woods advocated the same change hearts and minds (instead) approach. I see no evidence that it’s even starting to work.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Slwerner you don't desire to rebuild and restore the West now that it's destroyed. You are merely it's reaction.

    Gamers, anti-semitic WN, Darwinian conservatives and other ''conservatives'' have sensed that something is wrong but like the neoconservatives before them they have not broken through the liberal worldview.

    Why? They cannot reject liberalism. Is mass apostasy going to occur? It hasn't occured in the last 50 years.

    Liberalism devours all of the societies it has come upon bit by bit. It has not been stopped. The only thing that can stop it is it's death and this is occuring thanks to the economic collapse where America will be the hardest hit of all Western countries.

    If you don't want to rebuild the West and restore it and instead compare traditionalist conservatives to feminists as the source of your ills just as the liberals believe that Islamic terrorists are the good ones or that Islam is just the same as Christianity or that the poor little minorities are been victimized by the evil racist White Christians or that all cultures are the same or that if you discriminate you are a bigot not noticing that Christianity itself has been infected with liberalism.

    While I greatly appreciate your criticim of traditionalist conservatives and their infection with liberalism you cross the line when you believe truly traditionalist conservatives to be the same as feminists.

    This idea that everything is relative, that there is no such thing as truth, equality and so forth are the markings of liberalism.

    We have all been infected by liberalism in some way. That includes you. What we are asking instead is that you participate in the restoration of the West now that it is dead (or dying).

    If you don't it's because you are content with this aberration of a society. A society that loves to smear the West's past as slavery, colonialism, hatred, primitive, narrow minded, 'regressive', Neo-Nazi, totalitarian and so forth. A society that desires to flood it's borders with mass immigration displacing the native population, control and regulate the Internet (Barack Obama with the FCC has been trying to do this), destroy it's values and traditions through indoctrination at schools and universities (all in the name of 'progress') and many other examples.

    If you think I'm crazy and hysterical you should know that I'm finishing attenting an IBO International School (I'm 18) where everything I learned in English, Humanities, Economics, etc was based on multiculturalism, equality, progress, tolerance, peace/love/sexual revolution, diversity, relativism and other things.

    The West is dead --- www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013314.html

    Will you help us rebuild it or will you see light as darkness, darkness as light or light and darkness as one and the same?

    ReplyDelete
  79. My suggestion slwerner is to abolish no-fault divorce and restore the marital laws of the 19th century. If there were a political party advocating it, I'd vote for it.

    While you are advocating further degeneracy, for what else is shacking up but a trailer park morality.

    ReplyDelete
  80. slwerner,

    This is becoming tiresome. You're not arguing in good faith right now.

    You just characterised the traditionalist position as follows:

    Pedestalize women and make excuses for the bad behaviors. Seek to always blame men, first and foremost, for all societal ills. Demand that men be the one who “change”. Support anti-male legal frameworks, then support them when they are the status quo.

    That's not a genuine attempt to realistically convey the traditionalist position.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Elizabeth Smith - ”While I greatly appreciate your criticim of traditionalist conservatives and their infection with liberalism you cross the line when you believe truly traditionalist conservatives to be the same as feminists.”

    When they behave in the same ways, and work towards the same goals, what, exactly, is the real “net” difference between them.

    ” What we are asking instead is that you participate in the restoration of the West now that it is dead (or dying).”

    I’m afraid, young lady, that you have it quite backwards. It is I who is asking the Trads to pull their collective heads out of the sands of nostalgia and actually do something which will preserve and restore the fundamental institution of marriage. Closing your eyes, clicking your heals, and shouting you wish you were back in Kansas would be every bit as effective as the current Trad strategy of pretending that the issues relating to the decline of marriage can be over come simply by convincing men to “man up”, get married, and have kids.

    That’s really no different than the feminist obsession with the idea that men are the problem and men need to be changed (the desired change may be different, but the attitude is the same).

    The reality that Trads seem to struggle the most with (being mostly female pedistalizing white-knight chivalrists) is that most of the current ills are due to women, not men. Until they are willing to actually hold women accountable, they will see none of the changes they desire.

    You, and your circle of friends may be different (and I applaud you for that), but the sad fact is that 75+% of other young women your age have become a part of the problem. Expecting to achieve “restoration” of the West by only demanding changes in the behaviors of men continues to be a colossal failure.

    ReplyDelete
  82. MR - ”That's not a genuine attempt to realistically convey the traditionalist position.”

    Really? I can give you specific examples of each of those coming from both feminists and traditionalist.

    Are they collectively an unfair generalization?

    I will certainly admit that they are.

    But, how did you mange to avoid noticing the numerous dishonest and unfair generalizations about MRA’s that your other poster have been making? In fact, that seems to be just about all they’re doing.

    I’ll cop to my hypocrisy herein, but with the caveat that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.

    ReplyDelete
  83. slwerner didn't we already tell you that Christianity itself and conservatism in general has been infected with liberalism?

    I'm afraid you have it backwards, not us.

    You see the ills of liberal society and instead of attaking liberalism itself which has infected pretty much all institutions right now (schools, government, military, churches, etc) which is the true cause of these ills you start attacking the churches which have capitulated to liberalism long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Does Australian law shield men from the liabilities imposed upon American men who marry?

    I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not an expert on this issue, but my understanding is that since last year someone in a de facto relationship can now take property issues to the Family Court and have them dealt with under the same provisions applied to married couples (except in Western Australia and South Australia).

    So men in de facto relationships in most of Australia can be up for a division of assets and spousal maintenance (in some circumstances at least) as well as child support.

    ReplyDelete
  85. ES - ”You see the ills of liberal society and instead of attaking liberalism [snip] you start attacking the churches which have capitulated to liberalism long ago.”

    I attacked the churches? Were did I do that?

    And, I thought this thread was about the supposed “wrong turn” it was for MRA’s to disavow marriage?

    Attacking liberalism is it’s own separate issue, and I’m all for doing just that.

    Now, what were your ideas for making marriage more equitable and less risky for young men again?

    I favor legal reforms that A) remove the financial incentives for women in divorce, B) allow for “fault” to be considered in regard to asset distribution in divorce, with penalties for infidelity, C) require paternity testing not only at birth but for the determination of child-support obligations.

    I favor (non legal) marital reforms including A) premarital counseling, B) demonstration of a readiness in both maturity and financial ability, C) equal social expectations/demands on both men and women in marriage.

    And, I would suggest that those on the Conservative Right start regarding the lifestyles of young women to be just as potentially damaging as those of young men, and to be willing to understand that those who have been promiscuous are very unlikely to change, and should therefore NOT marry AT ALL – especially teaching young men to not throw their futures away on such women in their innate drive to be white-knights. The lessons of the Leon walkers of the world need to stand as educational examples.

    ReplyDelete
  86. slwerner, I just wanted to be clear on what you were saying: not only should men properly vet women, but they should not get married unless these legal reforms are enacted? Do you think it is possible for a man, Christian, traditionalist, or otherwise, to be sufficiently familiar with a potential wife's character and her beliefs that he can marry without worrying about a potential divorce?

    ReplyDelete
  87. @Mark Richardson/ "I'd be wary of..." Exremely informative AND substantive.Based upon these these standards,how many (Western) women are unsuitable for marriage?One percent?Nine percent?Eighty-seven percent?Upon what do you base your conclusions?Also,if one percent of (Western) women are unsuited to a (marital)relationship,is it intellectually and morally acceptable for one percent of (Western)men to consider one percent of (Western)women unworthy of a(marital)relationship?

    ReplyDelete
  88. papabear - ”I just wanted to be clear on what you were saying: not only should men properly vet women, but they should not get married unless these legal reforms are enacted?”

    No! The point of the legal reforms is to (long-term) make marriage more attractive to young men by reducing the risks


    ”Do you think it is possible for a man, Christian, traditionalist, or otherwise, to be sufficiently familiar with a potential wife's character and her beliefs that he can marry without worrying about a potential divorce?”

    There are not absolutes nor guarantees in life. That there will always be some risk is precisely why the legal reforms are needed.

    And, I was remiss in my last response to Elizabeth in that I failed to mention that I also believe that it is critical to educate young women to not throw away their futures by sleeping around with alpha-males in the belief that they can win one of them over, and snare him as a husband.

    From all that I’ve seen, with Social Conservative Christian ranks the teachings of evils of sexuality are limited almost entirely to young men and their libido’s. It’s as if it’s assumed that all Christian girls only wish to be chaste.

    ReplyDelete
  89. papabear - ”I just wanted to be clear on what you were saying: not only should men properly vet women, but they should not get married unless these legal reforms are enacted?”

    No! The point of the legal reforms is to (long-term) make marriage more attractive to young men by reducing the risks.

    ”Do you think it is possible for a man, Christian, traditionalist, or otherwise, to be sufficiently familiar with a potential wife's character and her beliefs that he can marry without worrying about a potential divorce?”

    There are not absolutes nor guarantees in life. That there will always be some risk is precisely why the legal reforms are needed.

    And, I was remiss in my last response to Elizabeth in that I failed to mention that I also believe that it is critical to educate young women to not throw away their futures by sleeping around with alpha-males in the belief that they can win one of them over, and snare him as a husband.

    From all that I’ve seen, with Social Conservative Christian ranks the teachings of evils of sexuality are limited almost entirely to young men and their libido’s. It’s as if it’s assumed that all Christian girls only wish to be chaste.

    ReplyDelete
  90. slwerner, some might make you out to be an absolutist, but I found your response to me to be imprecise regarding what you are advising men to do with respect to marriage. I understand the purpose of legal reform, but if such reforms are not enacted (and I doubt they will be, here in the U.S.) should men (in general, if not all men) avoid marriage? I understood previously that this was your position.

    ReplyDelete
  91. papabear - ”such reforms are not enacted (and I doubt they will be, here in the U.S.) should men (in general, if not all men) avoid marriage? I understood previously that this was your position.”

    Indeed. I do not advocate men entering into Marriage 2.0, and if they do chose to do so, to do so with open and guarding eyes, and a solid pre-nup.

    The value I see in what some term a “marriage strike” is that it can be used to drive home the message (especially to women) that men are no longer willing to subject themselves to the state via a marriage contract (which is as much a contract between the man and the state as it is between the man and a woman).

    The idea is to force a change in the behaviors of women. They need to be made to understand that they too need to be worthy of marriage, and that they will not be able to sucker men into marrying them simply for their own financial benefit.

    Short of legal reforms, a viable option may be to combine private marital contracts (providing ways can be found to ensure that they will be upheld by courts) with religious or “Covenant Marriages”.

    ReplyDelete
  92. slwerner, thank you for your response. I think your position should be clear to the participants now, even if it has been stated already...

    ReplyDelete
  93. Brendan has nailed it, as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Conservative churches pedestalizing women must be an American phenomenon.

    In my church they were spreading a magazine warning young men about promiscuous girls. They were compared with half-eaten snickers bar, its cover torn, lying in the dirt.

    The author emphatically asked young men if they would think of taking such a girl home to Mother.

    I live in Western Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Conservative churches pedestalizing women must be an American phenomenon.

    Anon, my thought too. Ladette culture is too obvious a phenomena in most places to be ignored. Even the mainstream media has picked up on it. There are lots of articles in the media here about binge drinking by women, the rise of female violence, the rise of raunch culture etc.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Slwerner at 8:36 said,

    "I favor legal reforms that A) remove the financial incentives for women in divorce, B) allow for “fault” to be considered in regard to asset distribution in divorce, with penalties for infidelity, C) require paternity testing not only at birth but for the determination of child-support obligations.

    I favor (non legal) marital reforms including A) premarital counseling, B) demonstration of a readiness in both maturity and financial ability, C) equal social expectations/demands on both men and women in marriage."

    I and we favor all of that too so we're left wondering where's the beef?

    In response to your request detailing where Trads have opposed the modern divorce trends and offered suggestions other than attacking men. On this site we have:

    Well there are so many critiques of feminism that you don’t have to go far to see one. Look one thread down, “Leftist hero attacks feminism”, where the weakness of female demands for promiscuity is attacked. And a couple more down, “The end of men? Maybe not”, another attack on feminism. A couple below that, “Why the sting in feminist sex?” a reference to rape laws.

    There are many, many posts on the phenomenon of modern woman who are not happy in the modern world and their swinging attitudes to sex and life as well as the fragility of modern marriage is considered the chief culprit. Here’s one example http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/11/jolted-and-startled.html

    Specifically on marriage though…

    One calling for reform of divorce laws and giving a little greater insight into the divorce stats:
    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/10/simple-truth-about-divorce-rate.html

    One about sexual history as a guide to marriage success.
    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-history-marital-stability.html

    One about the decline of marriage in the most left wing of all countries Sweeden.
    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/06/decline-of-marriage-in-sweden.html

    One about moral attitudes in women being discouraged in modern society
    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/05/good-girls-let-down-by-society.html

    One about women marrying thugs
    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/02/she-married-him.html

    Feminists criticising motherhood
    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-would-feminist-attack-motherhood.html

    Those are all roughly in the last year. I’m sure Mark has many specifically detailing what changes should be made to the marriage laws.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Slwerner,

    In response to your specific request about me, I'm single but on the road to marriage. I didn't get married earlier because I could tell I'd be the kind of guy caught in the divorce headlights. As married life is harder for men these days they have to be stronger to successfully negotiate it. Hence what we do is important and by opting out to play xbox you're not helping yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Jesse,

    Here's an article I first published back in 2004, well before The Spearhead came into existence and before Roissy became well-known.

    It's a million miles distant from pedestalising women, or placing the blame on men alone or any of the things social conservatives are being accused of in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Fake ''conservatives'' are the worst enemies to traditional conservatism next to liberals. They undermine conservatism from within.

    Barack Obama and the Democrat Party in the USA have done much good to conservatism. It's better to oppose an honest and clear enemy rather than a traitor masquering as a friend and one of your own (such as Republicans).

    ReplyDelete
  100. Thanks Mark,

    I couldn't get the link to work though.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Neoconservatives continue raping conservatism --- www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018279.html

    ReplyDelete
  102. Clueless, compromised ''conservative'' establishment --- www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018262.html

    ReplyDelete
  103. MR - "It's a million miles distant from pedestalising women, or placing the blame on men alone or any of the things social conservatives are being accused of in this thread."

    I couldn't get this one to work, but I check the ones Jesse_7 posted.

    Sure you accept the need for reform, and even though it different that actually calling for specific legal changes, I would thank you for your stated support.

    But you're in Australia.

    Here, in the US, in real situations wee law have been proposed and even brought before legislature, Social Conservatives have been complete no-shows when it came to voice support for those efforts.

    Now sure made their opposition known, but their supposed rivals, such as Concerned Women For America, DECLINED requests to weigh in. They made it quite clear that they will not touch issues such as paternity testing, reform of child-support/visitation rights reforms, nor presumed shared child custody.

    You know who has actively lobbied on behalf of these actual legislative proposals - MRA's. Glenn Sacks and Fathers & Families can be counted on in every case.

    As I've continually pointed out to Laura Woods, MRA's are the ONLY people actually doing any thing more than offering lip-service support.

    BTW, simply acknowledging the need for reform, but "pushing" for men to get married anyway is sort of like putting the cart before the horse.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Well society has to go on even if its imperfect. I would acknowledge that men's rights groups and fathers groups have been at the forefront of pushing for reform to the divorce system. Traditionalists absolutely shouldn't be remiss on that front.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Traits which render a woman unsuitable for marriage?

    Other readers can add to the list, but I'll make a start.

    a) I'd be wary of women who are promiscuous.

    b) I'd be wary of women who seem to lack a moral core in their dealings with others.

    c) I'd be wary of women who are excessively hypergamous (it's normal to a degree in women, but you meet some types who are obviously too motivated by the material aspects of marriage, i.e. they are gold diggers).

    d) I'd be wary of women who don't value marriage as an institution.

    e) I'd be wary of women who have been overly exposed to feminist theory at university and who have internalised it in terms of their identity and values.

    f) I'd be wary of women who showed excessive signs of entitlement, i.e. a lack of a sense of reciprocity in relationships.

    g) I'd be wary of women who did not accept a masculine/feminine dynamic in personal relationships.

    h) I'd be wary of women who treated the idea of divorce too casually.

    i) I'd be wary of women with mental health issues.

    j) I'd be wary of women who respond to the physical side of relationships coldly or with distate.

    k) I'd be wary of women who express no desire to have children.

    l) I'd be wary of women who are financially irresponsible.


    Uh Sir,

    You just disqualified 99.999999% of Western women! The number of women who don't violate a fair number of your sensible criteria is asymptotically close to zero; for all intents and purposes it IS zero...

    ReplyDelete
  106. MarkyMark,

    Its not white knighting though is it.

    You don't find women like that unless they've been brought up in a moral atmosphere. You don't get a moral atmosphere unless you recognize its importance.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Jesse, knowing that most women are completely unsuitable for marriage why are you and Mark and the rest of the trade telling men to get married? I know your response will be to find one of the rare suitable women but most men will never find them since they are so few. Telling men to get married is telling them to marry an unsuitable woman.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Wow, just *wow* - stunningly circular reasoning from Jesse_7 throughout this thread:

    "You don't find women like that unless they've been brought up in a moral atmosphere. You don't get a moral atmosphere unless you recognize its importance."

    Avoiding the point that today's women are not often drawn to choose a "moral atmosphere" kind of fellow in today's West!

    "What does conservatism have to offer men? Manhood."

    What does that mean, when women are not selecting such men? Who is enforcing any 'separation' under discussion?

    Many men who thought they CHOSE "conservative" women were surprised and disappointed later, when the divorce papers arrived! How can conservatives not acknowledge that, and not address it with any substance?

    Ironically, society will go on, though given the stated concerns about Muslims, ethnics, et al, it won't go on with the kinds of people that conservatives say they want!

    Oh - apologies to slwerner for the NSFW reference -
    but it too proves his point in a way, doesn't it?

    Alas, Brendan a/k/a 'novaseeker' seems to state the problem correctly, via the person who quoted him. Sheesh! (Or maybe 'Crikey' - but do Australians truly use that word, or is it a media cliché?)

    Wow, just wow - no longer entertaining, but stunning.

    ReplyDelete
  109. gdgm,

    Just because you go for a conservative or more conservative woman doesn’t guarantee that there still may not be a divorce or that you'll have a happy marriage. You still have to work at the marriage, you still have to have their respect and they yours, you have to be reasonably attracted to each other etc.

    The point about morality is that if you, you that is, abandon moral standards totally, fully embrace self interest and say total promiscuity is ok for you, then you yourself are adding to a non-moral environment. You can then hardly be upset then if women do the same thing. Cart before the horse? Not all women are raging sluts. Morality is something that has to be fostered, its not just a goody shop for you to choose your women from.

    Anonymous,

    Going off that list I've met plenty of girls like that. It depends how you define a) and e) though. I personally wouldn't define promiscuity as being not a virgin, but having a limited number of partners, only within relationships or not as a priority. Also regarding feminism every woman will be exposed to it to some degree. If "feminism" means that the interests of women should be considered or advanced then I have no problem with it, as I have no problem with advancing the interests of men. If it means that women will feel justified in everything that they do, that they'll see men as essentially the enemy with only a focus on themselves and not complementariness, then I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  110. gdgm said,

    "Avoiding the point that today's women are not often drawn to choose a "moral atmosphere" kind of fellow in today's West!"

    So they want bad guys? I'm not really sure that that's true. If being "bad" means to amp up your sexuality to the primary focus, then a woman may be mesmerized by that for a short time, but not want to marry it of live with it. If given the choice many women, I suppose especially middle class women, would prefer boring over dangerous for a long term relationship. I imagine though that they'd want neither extreme.

    ReplyDelete
  111. "So they want bad guys? I'm not really sure that that's true."

    *sigh* There is a great deal of evidence throughout the Web (such as that quoted by thread commenter 'MarkyMark') and elsewhere that indicates so.

    "If given the choice many women, I suppose especially middle class women, would prefer boring over dangerous for a long term relationship. I imagine though that they'd want neither extreme."

    Sir, *please* stop "imagining". Commenters on this thread are trying to offer a range of _data_, from the personal (which can be questionable, we know), to news stories, including studies of marriage/divorce patterns (such as the commenter referencing the 'dalrock' blog).

    "The point about morality is that if you, you that is, abandon moral standards totally, fully embrace self interest and say total promiscuity is ok for you, then you yourself are adding to a non-moral environment."

    Perhaps - but not every man in the discussion has "abandoned moral standards", whether or not the women in question have. Nor have the unhappily divorced "embraced" the promiscuity of the wives who have left them.

    Observation, young grasshopper.

    ReplyDelete
  112. gdgm,

    Well not being a woman I don't have a total insight but I can work from my observation and having talked to people. It seems to me that women work on a continuum. Some are loud and out there and many are far less so. They read romance or relationship novels, they want boyfriends not one night stands. They want to be treated well and have semi permanence in their relationships. Yes they also want excitement from time to time and the guy to lead and a dangerous guy is likely to provide those two things, but not the rest.

    There are sluts out there and we all know that. Also there are probably (many) more today than in the past. Many women are also encouraged to act in this way and don't always want to. I've certainly seen sharp practice by women in relationships, as a general rule though I've not seen that many women out there "riding the conga line". You can't judge them entirely by male standards. Many women go to clubs to dance rather than to get laid. I don't think any straight men go to clubs to dance.

    What this implies is that women aren't totally a lost cause that you need to hold down with chains or extremely hard legal sanctions. The prospect of easy divorce or breakups might prove very tempting for self indulgent people and I would admit that maybe women are frequently more selfish than men.

    I think one way around this in the marriage context is to "up the costs" of divorce. With children if you made visitation or dual custody mandatory the prospect of endlessly having to see the ex would make the "freedom" of divorce start to pall. Women should not necessarily be given favoritism in determining custody. I don't know what the financial breakups for divorce are currently but if the woman earns or has significant earning potential then she isn't in the position of the financially dependant wife and so should according be given much less. If the marriage is short she should get much less of the estate. If someone is demonstratably at fault they should get less. This last point does however open up the marriage to close legal scrutiny, he did this she did that, and will give lots of work to private investigators.

    These changes will occur when the divorce courts are taken out of the shadows. The left dominate when there is no or little scrutiny of what they do, and they've had a damn good run in the divorce courts. Public opinion, though, is not so easily swayed when they actually know the facts.

    The Men's rights movement has done sterling work on this front and has absolutely led this.

    The feminists have done their dash for liberation and now people don't seriously say that women are under the thumb. Very many young women don't like to be called "feminists" because it implies that women aren't equal. Consequently this is a good environment to start reigning this in.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "The point about morality is that if you, you that is, abandon moral standards totally, fully embrace self interest and say total promiscuity is ok for you, then you yourself are adding to a non-moral environment. You can then hardly be upset then if women do the same thing. Cart before the horse? Not all women are raging sluts. Morality is something that has to be fostered, its not just a goody shop for you to choose your women from."


    Well said Jesse.. I am really enjoying reading what you have to say.. You are an optimist like me :)

    I can however see the flip side of the coin.. Guys do have to be very careful when it comes to marriage nowadays.. The cards are stacked against them in the courts..

    Slwerner, for instance, who is married is well aware of the pitfalls.(And from what I have read things are much worse in America for men there) Having an eighteen year old son he would be quite concerned about his future prospects.. (re marriage)

    I can't say that I blame men for being wary.

    Feminism has marriage by the throat and is trying to strangle it..


    Women ARE no worse than men.. We are all fallen sinners.

    The difference in the world today is that we have allowed women to think of themselves as entitlement princessess.. There are no longer any checks and balances to keep them in line.(Feminism has a lot to answer for).So... some women DO behave badly. They do so however, because they can..

    They are weak and easily influenced. What they really need is strong men to lead.. Women are not leaders.. (or builders or rulers or inventors or innovators etc) They need men to tell them what to do..although they foolishly believe otherwise,because they have been conned by feminism.

    Having said all that though, I do believe in marriage, and have had a happy one for fifteen years now..

    The women who are my close relatives and friends are all good women.. None were ever sluts.

    I have three very good friends, all of whom are still married..
    Two married childhood sweethearts(both have had no other men) and the third had only one other relationship before her husband..

    In Australia at least, the marriage rate is rising.

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/0C1B35B7460458CFCA25762000159B48?opendocument

    ReplyDelete
  114. Kathy Farrelly said,

    "The difference in the world today is that we have allowed women to think of themselves as entitlement princessess.. There are no longer any checks and balances to keep them in line.(Feminism has a lot to answer for).So... some women DO behave badly. They do so however, because they can.."

    I agree with that.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I find people on both sides of this debate are too entrenched in their positions and are unable find some synthesis of ideas or policy – i.e. there does not seem to be a solution anywhere on the horizon. As much as I find the Gamists are just a mirror image of feminism, and play right into the hedonist cancer of liberalism, many of their legitimate concerns are simply not addressed effectively by Trads.

    [I will post this in two parts as Blogger isn’t allowing me to upload this in one hit]

    PART A

    Mark Richardson wrote: “If women want to do the hypergamous single girl thing in their 20s and then belatedly find a decent man to marry in their 30s, then men have to be made to go along with it to make it happen.” I believe that is exactly what the Separatists and Gamists are criticizing Trads of advocating. As Simon in London writes, “It does lead to some men being taken advantage of” and as a consequence, Hőllenhund puts is succinctly: “I doubt you can make a reasonable argument that men have such a responsibility towards a society which has completely weakened and devalued fatherhood.” Factory’s initial series of questions hit the nail on the head, namely, why should a man today assume a role that essentially renders him as a conduit of civilisational survival while being hated by the very civilization he has submitted himself body and soul to rescue? Of Course, the status quo is not our civilization; we must “rebuild” what was lost, but what the Separatists are saying is that the indictment to rebuild is like a command to sew seeds in gravel: a directive to a futile course of action.

    Moreover, when Anonymous writes that “What is totally unacceptable is that women should have all the benefits of ‘autonomy’ and of tradition at the same time” he’s highlighted the fact that where (a) the feminist liberal left (and right) claim social ‘rights’ for women and inadvertidly impose economic liabilities on men, (b) Trads feed the culture of female entitlement by encouraging men to defer to women according to rules of chivalry which have become long redundant. Pace Elizabeth Smith, this does effectively channel the ideological efforts of Trads and feminists into the same anti-male direction. Sarah Palin and her daughter is a prime example of how this unholy mixture finds harmonious expression through the rhetoric of one person, respectively. No, this has nothing to do with “relativism”, Ms Smith.

    Slwerner writes: “ Woman have been both legal[ly] and socially “exonerated” for their sexual mischief, and the efforts to protect them from the normal (traditional) consequences of their chosen behaviors comes as much from the white knights on the right as it does from the gender-feminists on the left.” Further, “The biggest problem with you SocCons is your abject refusal to place the blame for the current societal ills on woman. Just like your natural allies, the gender-feminist, you invariably look to blame men instead.” I have noticed this too, even on sites like The Thinking Housewife which defend men and are critical of female pop-culture. The ultimate answer is always to put the liability to fix this problem on men and men alone.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I find people on both sides of this debate are too entrenched in their positions and are unable find some synthesis of ideas or policy – i.e. there does not seem to be a solution anywhere on the horizon. As much as I find the Gamists are just a mirror image of feminism, and play right into the hedonist cancer of liberalism, many of their legitimate concerns are simply not addressed effectively by Trads.

    [I will post this in two parts as Blogger isn’t allowing me to upload this in one hit]

    PART A

    Mark Richardson wrote: “If women want to do the hypergamous single girl thing in their 20s and then belatedly find a decent man to marry in their 30s, then men have to be made to go along with it to make it happen.” I believe that is exactly what the Separatists and Gamists are criticizing Trads of advocating. As Simon in London writes, “It does lead to some men being taken advantage of” and as a consequence, Hőllenhund puts is succinctly: “I doubt you can make a reasonable argument that men have such a responsibility towards a society which has completely weakened and devalued fatherhood.” Factory’s initial series of questions hit the nail on the head, namely, why should a man today assume a role that essentially renders him as a conduit of civilisational survival while being hated by the very civilization he has submitted himself body and soul to rescue? Of Course, the status quo is not our civilization; we must “rebuild” what was lost, but what the Separatists are saying is that the indictment to rebuild is like a command to sew seeds in gravel: a directive to a futile course of action.

    Moreover, when Anonymous writes that “What is totally unacceptable is that women should have all the benefits of ‘autonomy’ and of tradition at the same time” he’s highlighted the fact that where (a) the feminist liberal left (and right) claim social ‘rights’ for women and inadvertidly impose economic liabilities on men, (b) Trads feed the culture of female entitlement by encouraging men to defer to women according to rules of chivalry which have become long redundant. Pace Elizabeth Smith, this does effectively channel the ideological efforts of Trads and feminists into the same anti-male direction. Sarah Palin and her daughter is a prime example of how this unholy mixture finds harmonious expression through the rhetoric of one person, respectively. No, this has nothing to do with “relativism”, Ms Smith.

    Slwerner writes: “ Woman have been both legal[ly] and socially “exonerated” for their sexual mischief, and the efforts to protect them from the normal (traditional) consequences of their chosen behaviors comes as much from the white knights on the right as it does from the gender-feminists on the left.” Further, “The biggest problem with you SocCons is your abject refusal to place the blame for the current societal ills on woman. Just like your natural allies, the gender-feminist, you invariably look to blame men instead.” I have noticed this too, even on sites like The Thinking Housewife which defend men and are critical of female pop-culture. The ultimate answer is always to put the liability to fix this problem on men and men alone.

    ReplyDelete
  117. PART B

    It’s just unrealistic, nonsensical and plain offensive to think men will ‘man up’ and just go along with all this. Put all the noble altruism aside for a second and consider: at the end of the day, you need to give us an incentive. Right now, we have none. Pure and simple. Gamists at least offer a plan and tactic in allowing men to relieve their sexual frustrations, Trads offer vagaries that appear utopian in the given context. This is due to the fact that, as Slwerner puts it, “ the cold hard reality is that given the state of modern Marriage 2.0 and the anti-male courts, a man can do better by NOT marrying.” It is unsurprising so many men will congregate at The Spearhead, In Mala Fide and Citizen Renegade (née Roissy in DC) than The Thinking Housewife, or View from the Right.

    Perhaps one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that the Gamists at least have a point, is how easy it is for a Trad, when confronted with the stark reality of the status quo, to turn to Game: James writes, “Teach men not to take shit from women.” That is pure Game. But even here there is risk of tempting the wrath of the husband-father simulacrum: Jesse_7 writes: “If women are potentially irresponsible by nature then they need strong men to tell them to "knock it off".” Practice this, and see how long it will take you to see the inside of a court.

    Thus we return to the beginning: the critics of the Traditionalist ‘solution’, such as it is, have a valid point that is never really answered. However, the Gamists simply exacerbate the social problem that we all suffer under. No synthesis. No real solution. Even theoretical debates such as this one end up being a failure. That, I think, is the saddest thing of all. As a Trad myself, I must confess that I find Slwelner’s propositions of Thursday, 30 December 2010 8:36:00 AM AEDT (and further) far more compelling than the ‘man up’ meme offered by my co-ideologues in this thread. In lieu of these reforms taking place, Gdgm+ is correct is identifying ‘man up’ SoCons as the ones creating a segregated society of ‘manly’ men (whatever that is) and the rest, while he is also correct in claiming that separatists do not have to be immoral but hermetic. The alternative is, in Slwerner’s somewhat distasteful metaphor, charging at machineguns. Personally, I am not so inclined.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anon said:

    ""I know your response will be to find one of the rare suitable women but most men will never find them since they are so few. Telling men to get married is telling them to marry an unsuitable woman.""

    If a man cannot find a suitable woman or a woman who is not so ruined that she can be influenced by a strong man to BECOME more suitable then there is really no point in the current environment for a man in getting married.

    The differences between the seperatist viewpoint and the traditionalist is that the latter believes the situation is not so dire, and that though many women make themselves unsuitable for anything more than pump and dump there are enough half decent prospects to give most men who know their own mind a half decent shot.

    That's why I see Seperatism as an excuse, as a young bloke in my 20's I see plenty of half-decent women around not completely screwed by feminism.

    As I see it the worldview portrayed by seperatists is not an enlightened form of resistance to Liberalism, but rather a cop out, a cowardly way to excuse themselves from ever having to do anything real to make a difference.

    "slwerner" is not debating in good faith, it is quite clear that he has a warped idea not only of the world but also of tradtionalism and no amount of debate will change this.

    He is EXACTLY the sort of man who sits in his room writing angry things about women before going out to the missus quiet and tame as a hand reared mouse.

    How the hell a seperatist can justify being married is a mystery. A Traditionalist can justify not being married on much the same grounds as a seperatist [hard to find good women] but there is no grounds for a seperatist to pontificate while wearing a wedding band.

    slwerner is a walking oxymoron. While there are seperatists who can debate well and put their points across he is not one of them.

    If it were not for the passion [some have said hysteria] of his arguments I would suspect Trollness.

    As it is, i will give the benefit of the doubt to this very strange Seppo man.

    By the way, how good must the Seperatist movement in the U.S [it exists no-where else I am aware of] be doing if they spend their time arguing at a traditionalist site based in Melbourne?

    Guess some Seppos just have trouble keeping out of other peoples affairs. Sad, gives the rest of them a bad name.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Anon said:

    ""I know your response will be to find one of the rare suitable women but most men will never find them since they are so few. Telling men to get married is telling them to marry an unsuitable woman.""

    If a man cannot find a suitable woman or a woman who is not so ruined that she can be influenced by a strong man to BECOME more suitable then there is really no point in the current environment for a man in getting married.

    The differences between the seperatist viewpoint and the traditionalist is that the latter believes the situation is not so dire, and that though many women make themselves unsuitable for anything more than pump and dump there are enough half decent prospects to give most men who know their own mind a half decent shot.

    That's why I see Seperatism as an excuse, as a young bloke in my 20's I see plenty of half-decent women around not completely screwed by feminism.

    As I see it the worldview portrayed by seperatists is not an enlightened form of resistance to Liberalism, but rather a cop out, a cowardly way to excuse themselves from ever having to do anything real to make a difference.

    "slwerner" is not debating in good faith, it is quite clear that he has a warped idea not only of the world but also of tradtionalism and no amount of debate will change this.

    He is EXACTLY the sort of man who sits in his room writing angry things about women before going out to the missus quiet and tame as a hand reared mouse.

    How the hell a seperatist can justify being married is a mystery. A Traditionalist can justify not being married on much the same grounds as a seperatist [hard to find good women] but there is no grounds for a seperatist to pontificate while wearing a wedding band.

    slwerner is a walking oxymoron. While there are seperatists who can debate well and put their points across he is not one of them.

    If it were not for the passion [some have said hysteria] of his arguments I would suspect Trollness.

    As it is, i will give the benefit of the doubt to this very strange Seppo man.

    By the way, how good must the Seperatist movement in the U.S [it exists no-where else I am aware of] be doing if they spend their time arguing at a traditionalist site based in Melbourne?

    Guess some Seppos just have trouble keeping out of other peoples affairs. Sad, gives the rest of them a bad name.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Anon said:

    ""I know your response will be to find one of the rare suitable women but most men will never find them since they are so few. Telling men to get married is telling them to marry an unsuitable woman.""

    If a man cannot find a suitable woman or a woman who is not so ruined that she can be influenced by a strong man to BECOME more suitable then there is really no point in the current environment for a man in getting married.

    The differences between the seperatist viewpoint and the traditionalist is that the latter believes the situation is not so dire, and that though many women make themselves unsuitable for anything more than pump and dump there are enough half decent prospects to give most men who know their own mind a half decent shot.

    That's why I see Seperatism as an excuse, as a young bloke in my 20's I see plenty of half-decent women around not completely screwed by feminism.

    As I see it the worldview portrayed by seperatists is not an enlightened form of resistance to Liberalism, but rather a cop out, a cowardly way to excuse themselves from ever having to do anything real to make a difference.

    "slwerner" is not debating in good faith, it is quite clear that he has a warped idea not only of the world but also of tradtionalism and no amount of debate will change this.

    He is EXACTLY the sort of man who sits in his room writing angry things about women before going out to the missus quiet and tame as a hand reared mouse.

    How the hell a seperatist can justify being married is a mystery. A Traditionalist can justify not being married on much the same grounds as a seperatist [hard to find good women] but there is no grounds for a seperatist to pontificate while wearing a wedding band.

    slwerner is a walking oxymoron. While there are seperatists who can debate well and put their points across he is not one of them.

    If it were not for the passion [some have said hysteria] of his arguments I would suspect Trollness.

    As it is, i will give the benefit of the doubt to this very strange Seppo man.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Kathy Farrellyy - ”And from what I have read things are much worse in America for men there”

    It’s perhaps unfortunate that we in the Northern Hemisphere tend to see the conditions throughout the Anglosphere as be basically pretty much the same.

    I don’t know if it’s simply that those of you “down under” haven’t had some of the same wedge issues (multi-culturalism and political correctness as pseudo-religions) for as long as we have had helping to break down society and allow for the rise of sexually libertine feminism, but for what ever reason, it does seem that Australia and New Zealand seem to have been less effected by the destructive influences.

    Count your blessings.

    For those of us up here, Alte has posted her predictions:

    http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/the-future-according-to-alte/

    ReplyDelete
  122. "You just characterised the traditionalist position as follows:

    Pedestalize women and make excuses for the bad behaviors. Seek to always blame men, first and foremost, for all societal ills. Demand that men be the one who “change”. Support anti-male legal frameworks, then support them when they are the status quo.

    That's not a genuine attempt to realistically convey the traditionalist position. "

    Hate to say it Mark, but that is precisely what "Conservatives" have to offer men.

    In fact, it was the point of my post.

    All 'trads' have to offer men, is a heaping helping of the same shit Feminists have been serving for years.

    In fact, Feminism and modern Chivalry are fundamentally identical.

    The ONLY difference I see between conservatives and Feminists, is the means by which they advocate the transfer of men's wealth to women.

    That's it.

    Other than that, there is NO difference.

    I know, Conservatives HATE the idea of espousing liberal values. I know you probably recoil in horror at the very thought.

    Problem is, how many thousands of words and how many posters later, not even you can come up with even ONE example of a conservative of any political power offering anything other than 'man up' to men.

    The Conservative politicos are either laughably ineffective, or essentially identical to Feminists, with their 'opposition' being little more than window dressing.

    Hell, even after being challenged repeatedly on multiple websites, there is STILL no noise from conservatives about any of these issues, except on how it impacts 'women and families'...

    You may have a different take on this, and since I've long tried to include this aspect of the Mens Movement debate, it should be obvious I'm waiting for you guys to actually DO something...or even SAY something, frankly...

    Don't tell me there's no 'voice' politically for conservatives. They are the ONLY viable alternative to the Left. 'Viable', of course, only in the sense that they have the power to effect change.

    Because they most certainly have NOT used that power in constructive ways, much as they like to say they have.

    Unless, that is, the conservative 'powers that be' actually SUPPORT the feminist agenda.

    Nah, that'd be too crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Give us am example of real conservatives supporting feminist agenda, Factory.

    Under real conservatives I don't mean Sarah Palin variety of conservatism.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Anonymous - "Give us am example of real conservatives supporting feminist agenda"

    You obviously do not realize the size of teh can of worms you've just asked to be opened.

    There are hundreds, if not thousands, of easily available examples. I'm not going to waste a lot of bandwidth trying to "flood" you with them (unless you demand it), but here's one which took all of two seconds to find:

    "In 1983, as Missouri’s Attorney General, it was my privilege to serve on then-Attorney General William French Smith’s Task Force on Family Violence, which laid the foundation for the Violence Against Women Act. Later, I was an original co-sponsor in the Senate of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000." - John Ashcroft (http://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2004/ag091304_ovw.htm)

    ReplyDelete
  125. Anonymous - "Under real conservatives I don't mean Sarah Palin variety of conservatism."

    I spent few minutes looking at some things that people calling themselves conservative have said or done. But, they may not meet your definition of "real conservative".

    How about you name a few "real conservatives", and then we'll take a look at their records? That way we can see if those real conservatives have ever done anything directly anti-feminist, or if they have actually supported feminist ideals.

    ReplyDelete
  126. "That way we can see if those real conservatives have ever done anything directly anti-feminist"

    Opps!

    Duh!, I'm sure they've acted in opposition of feminism in some ways. The real question is have they acted in ways that could be seen as specifically "pro-male" - in other words, have they actually sought to act in the interests of men even when it might have advantaged men relative to women.

    Be against abortion, for instance, is obviously against feminist doctrine, so what I'm looking for is something like coming out in support of paternity testing and for protections for men against paternity fraud - or something of a similar nature which directly challenges the advantages already given to women so as to be in men's interests.

    ReplyDelete
  127. To the anonymous poster I addressed above, and to any other Traditionalists.

    I'm not really looking to pick a fight with you guys. Rather, I'm hoping to get you to take a hard look at what conservatives (of any stripe) are doing in regards to addressing the issues of concern to men (specifically) at are the underlying issues in regards to men increasingly avoiding marriage.

    At some point, if you really hope to save the institution you are going to have to face the reality that suggesting that men simply "man up" and hope for the best isn't going to be successful.

    I've long sought to find common ground with those who SHOULD be the allies of the MRM in seeking to roll back feminism.

    I do hope that you will seriously consider that conservative leaders are going to have to address men's issues as the real way to restoring the traditional society you seem to desire.

    Anyway, I've off for a weekend get-away with my wife. I wish you all the best for the New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  128. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I’ll return to Mark’s initial post and refer to some quotes.

    “And so you get a theory that the real cause of men's problems is not the pursuit by feminists of liberal autonomy, but the sacrifice of men by social conservatives in the cause of chivalry or white knighting

    The logic of male separatism is that all women are unworthy of marriage; marriage cannot be in the interests of men; therefore, if social conservatives support marriage it's because of a chivalrous, white knighting desire to sacrifice men in order to rescue wayward women.”

    I hope that we’ve shown that these positions attributed to us don’t stand up. We’re not interested in sacrificing men but nor are we interested in sacrificing the continuance of society which is what permanent separatism would mean.

    Mark went on to say,

    “But if separatism leads to such distortions, what's the alternative? The alternative is to understand that the Western political elite is a liberal one; that liberals believe in equal autonomy as the overriding aim of politics; and that feminists have campaigned to have equal autonomy applied to the lives of women.

    How can women's lives be made autonomous? By allowing women to raise their children independently of men (through state welfare, no fault divorce laws, alimony and child support, paid maternal leave, assumption of female custody etc.); by female careerism (affirmative action, changes to school curricula, state subsidised childcare etc.); by delaying a commitment to marriage and children (a single girl lifestyle of casual relationships, travel and career); by promoting sexual "liberation" (women selecting for sex alone, just as men supposedly do, rather than for marriage or romantic love, which then "liberates" women to select hypergamously or crudely on the basis of markers of testosterone, such as risk-taking, thuggishness, violence)."

    Mark has consistently opposed all of those positions on the blog.

    If Liberalism is “in the water” so to speak it stands that even conservatives in the political realm will support it. This blog has been consistently critical of many aspects of the mainstream political conservative movement and has argued that they represent true conservative positions in name only. Much of the ire on this site is directed at “conservatives” who encourage or contribute to the status quo.

    That is a broad position now we move to the basic practical points. Yes it is time for practical support for the men’s movement in terms of marriage/divorce reform advocacy to be given, as it is the men’s movement who are carrying this fight. We’ve had numerous discussions on this site as to how our positions should be translated into practical politician action. Some have advocated speaking within current existing political parties or establishments and others have pushed for the creation of new ones.

    This is still a relatively small blog and movement but it will grow because liberal positions have been shown to be obviously detrimental to society, including and perhaps especially in the marriage setting, and also because our positions are held as common sense by a vast number in society,

    I don’t think we want to pick a fight with you either and we generally wish you the very best with what you’re doing.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Johnycomelately

    I'd like to see a comprehensive analysis of this using 'Iterated prisoner's dilemma'.

    As far as I can see conservatives are offering a nice or 'tit for two tats' strategy which leaves men in a precarious disadvantage relying on the good nature of his opponent.

    While seperatists are offering a 'tit for tat' strategy, which in of itself seems very fair, but has the undesirable potential of a 'death spiral' which seems to be what the traditionalists are trying to avoid.

    From my point of view, to avoid the 'death spiral' the focus must be on put on women to play the 'nice' strategy and asking men to not respond with tic for tac seems unfair.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Johnycomelately

    Re the prisoners dilemma. On further reflection the model cannot be used as a negative outcome for women cannot be made. A women wins in marriage and divorse, so the game is effectively rigged against men.

    The seperatists are right.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Anonymous/Johny,

    We agree that women have to start playing nice. Some degree of separatism is necessary for this to occur. If women think they can act in any old way and men will put up with it, then they will not change their behavior. Marriage 2.0 or whatever, works on the assumption that men will put up with it and we have to make it known that we won't.

    The emphasis then becomes on getting women to play nice. Firstly they are fully capable of this, they are not inherently incapable of forming stable relationships. Additionally we have the assumption that the vast majority want to get together and raise children with men, and that they won't necessarily dump their husband the moment this is done.

    Secondly Marriage 2.0 is a historical experiment. Its just been tried in the last generation which is an absolute blink of the eye. The results are coming back and they're not good. Feminists are having to reevaluate their assumptions as well and many women are turning away from feminism as its seen as incorporating too hostile an attitude to men.

    Thirdly, the current 20's-30's women are the first to fully embrace career expectations as well as having more independent married lives. The baby boomer women were still predominantly stay at home or limited working women. This means that this is yet another historical experiment.

    What this all means is that this is still early days and so its premature to say that this is how it always must be. Given that a bit of "keeping your head" is necessary.

    Men should/must assert their unwillingness to be women's patsies but they also need to keep a broader perspective in mind and realise that marriage is ultimately necessary for society. Yes there absolutely should be legal changes to make this easier but ultimately the goal should be to live with a woman.

    Women have tried separatism too and its called lesbianism. Feminists (many of them) don't give a damn about the longer term implications to society of their actions as longer as they are "free", "equal" or dominate, or whatever it is that they want. We shouldn't copy them though in this strategy and should instead isolate them as a destructive influence and instead offer our own more productive ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  133. If women win by dumping men then it is a limited victory. In that many women want to live with the opposite sex not alone. Its also a short term victory because men will delay/stop marriage/make divorce harder and then they won't be able to repeat that trick.

    I've played these prisoner scenarios before and it works on the assumption that the other player is the enemy, should be highly distrusted etc. Ultimately we have to see the opp sex, both of us, as not the enemy and that we both represent genuine interests, and that we "can" work well together.

    ReplyDelete
  134. the seperatists at this site don't take "Yes" for an answer.

    You accuse traditionalists of putting women on a pedastel and urging men to marry regardless of the quality of woman.

    They say that they do no such thing.

    You reply: Yes you do.

    Is that a fair summing up of the last 120-something posts?

    Telling people they are wrong because they believe in something that they don't actually believe in makes your argument look weak.

    ReplyDelete
  135. One more point,

    Traditionalism offers an intellectual "template", if you like, that you take into relationships. What "should" I do in this or that situation, what's appropriate here or there, how do we make this work, divorce should only be a last resort or shouldn't happen, people have to take responsibility for their actions. You can usually tell if people have these kinds of attitudes, admittedly people can dissemble so its better perhaps to "squeeze" your partner a little on these issues before you get married. As was stated this is no guarantee that there won’t be a divorce and traditionalism can't exist in a total vacuum. You also need legal props and social expectations.

    A traditionalist or conservative approach will however be different to a liberal approach. This will involve saying, what's in my best interests here or at this time, is this worth the cost, are my rights being infringed here etc. This is a more individualistic approach to marriage.

    The consequence of this is that liberals have higher divorce rates than conservatives. Talk to lefties or liberals and hardly any of them stay married, this largely isn't the case for many conservatives.

    Ok so self interest matters and you can't ignore it. You can't just tell people to marry "for the good of society" or whatever and have many people realistically do it if its potentially punitive. However, changing the legal structure is part of the issue only. If people themselves have a more permanent attitude to marriage, both men and women, rather than primarily a rights based approach, marriages will be more stable.

    ReplyDelete
  136. slwerner and Factory accuse traditional conservatives (the few that there are) of doing things they have never done. They look at ''conservatives'' like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh and others and actually believe them to be traditional conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  137. So according to Prisoner's Dilemma, the game is rigged from the onset.

    So that effectively leaves two strategies:

    Seperatism, avoid the game completely

    Traditionalism, play Russian roulette, hoping the other side will persue a sub optimal choice indefinately.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Test

    [I've tried to post my reply (in two parts) for the debate as at 30 December, but Blogger seems to be declining. I'll try again once more...]

    ReplyDelete
  139. I find people on both sides of this debate are too entrenched in their positions and are unable find some synthesis of ideas or policy – i.e. there does not seem to be a solution anywhere on the horizon. As much as I find the Gamists are just a mirror image of feminism, and play right into the hedonist cancer of liberalism, many of their legitimate concerns are simply not addressed effectively by Trads.



    [I will post this in two parts as Blogger isn’t allowing me to upload this in one hit]



    PART A



    Mark Richardson wrote: “If women want to do the hypergamous single girl thing in their 20s and then belatedly find a decent man to marry in their 30s, then men have to be made to go along with it to make it happen.” I believe that is exactly what the Separatists and Gamists are criticizing Trads of advocating. As Simon in London writes, “It does lead to some men being taken advantage of” and as a consequence, Hőllenhund puts is succinctly: “I doubt you can make a reasonable argument that men have such a responsibility towards a society which has completely weakened and devalued fatherhood.” Factory’s initial series of questions hit the nail on the head, namely, why should a man today assume a role that essentially renders him as a conduit of civilisational survival while being hated by the very civilization he has submitted himself body and soul to rescue? Of Course, the status quo is not our civilization; we must “rebuild” what was lost, but what the Separatists are saying is that the indictment to rebuild is like a command to sew seeds in gravel: a directive to a futile course of action.



    Moreover, when Anonymous writes that “What is totally unacceptable is that women should have all the benefits of ‘autonomy’ and of tradition at the same time” he’s highlighted the fact that where (a) the feminist liberal left (and right) claim social ‘rights’ for women and inadvertidly impose economic liabilities on men, (b) Trads feed the culture of female entitlement by encouraging men to defer to women according to rules of chivalry which have become long redundant. Pace Elizabeth Smith, this does effectively channel the ideological efforts of Trads and feminists into the same anti-male direction. Sarah Palin and her daughter is a prime example of how this unholy mixture finds harmonious expression through the rhetoric of one person, respectively. No, this has nothing to do with “relativism”, Ms Smith.



    Slwerner writes: “ Woman have been both legal[ly] and socially “exonerated” for their sexual mischief, and the efforts to protect them from the normal (traditional) consequences of their chosen behaviors comes as much from the white knights on the right as it does from the gender-feminists on the left.” Further, “The biggest problem with you SocCons is your abject refusal to place the blame for the current societal ills on woman. Just like your natural allies, the gender-feminist, you invariably look to blame men instead.” I have noticed this too, even on sites like The Thinking Housewife which defend men and are critical of female pop-culture. The ultimate answer is always to put the liability to fix this problem on men and men alone.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I find people on both sides of this debate are too entrenched in their positions and are unable find some synthesis of ideas or policy – i.e. there does not seem to be a solution anywhere on the horizon. As much as I find the Gamists are just a mirror image of feminism, and play right into the hedonist cancer of liberalism, many of their legitimate concerns are simply not addressed effectively by Trads.

    [I will post this in two parts as Blogger isn’t allowing me to upload this in one hit]

    PART A

    Mark Richardson wrote: “If women want to do the hypergamous single girl thing in their 20s and then belatedly find a decent man to marry in their 30s, then men have to be made to go along with it to make it happen.” I believe that is exactly what the Separatists and Gamists are criticizing Trads of advocating. As Simon in London writes, “It does lead to some men being taken advantage of” and as a consequence, Hőllenhund puts is succinctly: “I doubt you can make a reasonable argument that men have such a responsibility towards a society which has completely weakened and devalued fatherhood.” Factory’s initial series of questions hit the nail on the head, namely, why should a man today assume a role that essentially renders him as a conduit of civilisational survival while being hated by the very civilization he has submitted himself body and soul to rescue? Of Course, the status quo is not our civilization; we must “rebuild” what was lost, but what the Separatists are saying is that the indictment to rebuild is like a command to sew seeds in gravel: a directive to a futile course of action.

    Moreover, when Anonymous writes that “What is totally unacceptable is that women should have all the benefits of ‘autonomy’ and of tradition at the same time” he’s highlighted the fact that where (a) the feminist liberal left (and right) claim social ‘rights’ for women and inadvertidly impose economic liabilities on men, (b) Trads feed the culture of female entitlement by encouraging men to defer to women according to rules of chivalry which have become long redundant. Pace Elizabeth Smith, this does effectively channel the ideological efforts of Trads and feminists into the same anti-male direction. Sarah Palin and her daughter is a prime example of how this unholy mixture finds harmonious expression through the rhetoric of one person, respectively. No, this has nothing to do with “relativism”, Ms Smith.

    Slwerner writes: “ Woman have been both legal[ly] and socially 'exonerated' for their sexual mischief, and the efforts to protect them from the normal (traditional) consequences of their chosen behaviors comes as much from the white knights on the right as it does from the gender-feminists on the left.” Further, “The biggest problem with you SocCons is your abject refusal to place the blame for the current societal ills on woman. Just like your natural allies, the gender-feminist, you invariably look to blame men instead.” I have noticed this too, even on sites like The Thinking Housewife which defend men and are critical of female pop-culture. The ultimate answer is always to put the liability to fix this problem on men and men alone.

    ReplyDelete
  141. PART B

    It’s just unrealistic, nonsensical and plain offensive to think men will ‘man up’ and just go along with all this. Put all the noble altruism aside for a second and consider: at the end of the day, you need to give us an incentive. Right now, we have none. Pure and simple. Gamists at least offer a plan and tactic in allowing men to relieve their sexual frustrations, Trads offer vagaries that appear utopian in the given context. This is due to the fact that, as Slwerner puts it, “ the cold hard reality is that given the state of modern Marriage 2.0 and the anti-male courts, a man can do better by NOT marrying.” It is unsurprising so many men will congregate at The Spearhead, In Mala Fide and Citizen Renegade (née Roissy in DC) than The Thinking Housewife, or View from the Right.

    Perhaps one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that the Gamists at least have a point, is how easy it is for a Trad, when confronted with the stark reality of the status quo, to turn to Game: James writes, “Teach men not to take shit from women.” That is pure Game. But even here there is risk of tempting the wrath of the husband-father simulacrum: Jesse_7 writes: “If women are potentially irresponsible by nature then they need strong men to tell them to 'knock it off'.” Practice this, and see how long it will take you to see the inside of a court.

    Thus we return to the beginning: the critics of the Traditionalist ‘solution’, such as it is, have a valid point that is never really answered. However, the Gamists simply exacerbate the social problem that we all suffer under. No synthesis. No real solution. Even theoretical debates such as this one end up being a failure. That, I think, is the saddest thing of all. As a Trad myself, I must confess that I find Slwelner’s propositions of Thursday, 30 December 2010 8:36:00 AM AEDT (and further) far more compelling than the ‘man up’ meme offered by my co-ideologues in this thread. In lieu of these reforms taking place, Gdgm+ is correct is identifying ‘man up’ SoCons as the ones creating a segregated society of ‘manly’ men (whatever that is) and the rest, while he is also correct in claiming that separatists do not have to be immoral but hermetic. The alternative is, in Slwerner’s somewhat distasteful metaphor, charging at machineguns. Personally, I am not so inclined.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Well, the second part of my post appeared, for about 5 seconds, and then disappeared. fancy that. Looks like the spam feature on Blogger is defeating the very purpose of this thing.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Its not sub optimal to, for instance, not steal from a shop even if you know you won't get caught. Yes having children is a sub optimal strategy if you want to have extra money in the bank and go on more holidays. Societal norms are a whole range of sub optimal choices but when taken together they make society work. Not everything can be viewed through the perspective of optimal benefit and immediacy.

    If you think that means I'm encouraging suicidal male behavior refer to my last post.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Sub optimal concerning hyperagamay and evolutionary biology.

    According to those theories, lifelong mateship for females is sub-optimal.

    ReplyDelete
  145. slwerner, you wrote:

    "I spent few minutes looking at some things that people calling themselves conservative have said or done. But, they may not meet your definition of "real conservative".

    How about you name a few "real conservatives", and then we'll take a look at their records? "

    That was the whole point I was trying to make, that people who call themselves conservatives nowadays are often nothing of the kind.

    I'm not sure if I can give you examples of real conservatives among modern American politicians. They all seem to be infected with liberalism to some degree. I am not an American myself, but it seems that a lot of Americans associate anything Republican with conservatism, if it is so, then I understand your complaints about "conservative feminism", which should be an oxymoron.

    Factory, however, seemed to address in his post a group of bloggers calling themselves Traditionalists, which is not the same, that's why I asked him to give examples. As far as I can tell, traditionalist bloggers such as Mark Richardson don't support feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  146. slwerner,

    If you want to be more honest then recognize that you are part of a male liberationist movement. The idea that conservatives must offer young males something so that they don't choose the only alternative, de facto homo-ism, is rather silly UNLESS one desires radical autonomy and then the tiresome request gives the impression that something need be given. No, nothing need be given as it is manhood versus de facto homo-ism. And that is where you stand. You are an advocator for self-annihilation. You are telling a whole generation of males to go homo... Not physically, but mentally and intellectually. Do not bond with a woman for no good woman exists. You're faithless and no different than the modern liberal female who is also faithless. Why are you advocating that young males adopt the homosexual nature and its sexual disgust for woman? The reforms you seek are fundamentally egalitarian. You are seeking "equality" from an inferior position. But you also eschew seeking real Supremacy; not the phony stuff that the MRM is always referencing when they speak of "female supremacy." What kind of person thinks that females freely able to fornicate, abort, divorce and now die on the front lines are in positions of privilege and supremacy? And to think these "freedoms" are codified into law. Whew??? How very nice that our "default elite" is at the forefront of destroying women.

    See slwerner, one either wants to be a man or a male liberationist. He can't be both. He can't be atheist man. He can't be homosexual man. He can't be radically autonomous man.

    It is for sure that what you advocate has nothing to do with seeking manhood. Nothing. At least have the honesty to admit this?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Also, I think there is a misunderstanding between MRAs and Trads, based on the difference in the world view.

    MRAs often ask the question: what's in it for me, that's a liberal view point.

    We should be asking ourselves what is the morally correct thing to do, what benefits the society as a whole (feminism doesn't).

    In my country there was a Christian politician who went to protest the celebration of the Women's Day by local lefties. A feminist politician (a man) kept asking him if he was for men or for women, and his answer was that he was for families.

    The traditionalists think about the good of the whole community, not only men or women.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Thordaddy

    If anything, rewarding liberal behaviour is worse than abstaining from participating.

    Its the Christian message, better to die virtuously than compromising your beliefs.

    You and your ilk are the type that would have eaten foods sacrificed to idols 'just to get along', for the 'sake of the empire'. Tradition you know.

    Well, some might eschew that option and would rather burn at the stake.

    ReplyDelete
  149. There seem to be several anonymous commenters taking part in this discussion.

    I'd like to point out that the anon answering slwerner (me) is different from anon addressing thordaddy, so that there is no misunderstanding of my position.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Traditional conservatives believe in society and the community. They don't always think of the individual first and foremost. It's what God wants, not what I want. Anybody here who says that the option is between the current liberal order, separation or traditionalism in the liberal order (oxymoron) is wrong. My option would be for traditional conservatives to separate and segregate themselves from the liberal order creating their own communities.

    Btw the Republican Party in the USA is neoconservative and other ''conservatism''. They themselves have admitted not to be traditional conservatives. All of you gamers that keep putting this up and blame traditionalists for your ills are basically the same as this --- www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018266.html

    Liberals see the ills of liberal society and instead of blaming liberalism all of the sudden start blaming imaginary traditional conservatives (or the few traditional conservatives that have done nothing of this sort).

    ReplyDelete
  151. "No True Scotsman" fallacies aside, I still don't see anything even resembling a real 'reason' men should get married. The closest thing to it seems to be 'It's good for society, and helping society is the right thing to do'.

    What I see Traditionalists consistently 'not getting' (in mirror image to the manner in which Feminists tend to 'not get' certain concepts), is that a LARGE portion of men are looking at society and asking what value there is in said society.

    They are literally doing an ROI analysis and finding the continuation of this society is a BAD thing, not a good thing. You can hardly blame them, since this conclusion is reached based on years or even decades of patently oppressive treatment, enabled by a society that demonizes men at every turn.

    There are those of us who believe this ship can be steered to safety, there are others who believe it best to get off the ship, and watch it break apart on the shoals.

    My point, as an MRA, and as someone who has republished Mark's articles, I think the conservative voice is much needed in the MRM. But unfortunately you just don't seem to get it. You literally offer men nothing at all, but the same thing the Feminists are doing. Shaming, castigating, thelling men to 'man up'.

    Functionally, there is ZERO difference to the average man, between the two perspectives. And that is YOUR fault (by your, I mean 'conservatives'), not ours. The MRM is tiny compared to conservative groups, and the general population of men much larger still. If you are finding that men tend to agree with the nihilistic vision of the future, that's not our doing so much as it is their perception.

    There is SO much that could be accomplished if the 'powers that be' in conservative groups had ANY interest in going up against Feminism. But they don't do a thing, except blame men for not 'manning up' enough.

    Functionally indistinguishable from Feminism...

    And if that's not how things 'really are', again as I say to Feminists who argue similar stuff, the proof is in the pudding. If conservatives cared about men, or their human rights, they would have spoken up, and done SOMETHING by now.

    So don't get mad at those who see what is being done, and point their finger where the blame lies. Denial does not change the fact that conservatives have nothing of value to offer men, and that's a damned shame.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Factory, we have been trying to explain to you that so-called tradditionalists are few in number and as of present, have virtually no political power and influence. So the question what they are doing for men is a rhetorical one at best.

    ReplyDelete
  153. @Jesse

    "We agree that women have to start playing nice."

    Have to? They don't have to do anything. Right now the system is stacked in their favor, and they have no reason to change it. Talking about what women "have to do" is as absurd as talking about what Muslims "have to do". If feminists did what you think they "have to do" they wouldn't be feminists; if Muslims did what you think they "have to do" they wouldn't be Muslims. But neither group has to do what you want.

    The point (and power) of male separatism is that it does not rely on women having to do anything. It involves a man doing what is in his power to do.

    "Feminists are having to reevaluate their assumptions"

    LOL I don't think they are.

    "If women win by dumping men then it is a limited victory."

    You don't get it. They dump one man; but then they move on to one, or many, others. That's how they win, and it is a meaningful victory or they wouldn't have set it up that way.

    "Its also a short term victory because men will delay/stop marriage/make divorce harder"

    LOL yeah right, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

    "it works on the assumption that the other player is the enemy, should be highly distrusted etc."

    Since women are playing under those assumptions, men should too.

    "its better perhaps to "squeeze" your partner a little on these issues before you get married."

    Ha, and her "rock solid" opinions on these matters can change in a heartbeat.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Come on Mark come online, we've all got posts waiting in the bin.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Factory at 6:14 said,

    “is that a LARGE portion of men are looking at society and asking what value there is in said society.”

    Mate you can say that but as was pointed out this society was not created by us, but in the face of opposition from us.

    “There is SO much that could be accomplished if the 'powers that be' in conservative groups had ANY interest in going up against Feminism. But they don't do a thing, except blame men for not 'manning up' enough.”

    We’re repeating ourselves, we’ve already shown how this blog doesn’t support feminism and is a very vocal critique and opposer.

    Anonymous 6:49 said,

    “LOL yeah right, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.”

    Men are currently delaying marriage and the gloss on women has gone off. If you don’t believe this you can for instance watch Family Guy where women, young women, are one of the biggest consistent targets. I’m in the Army reserve and I was stunned at how openly the men call women “sluts” aka bitches. Eminiem and the rappers kill and rape women in their lyrics and the guys love it (also the women because the rappers don’t mean them of course). Men are not composing sonnets for women at the moment and it’s a big consistent complaint of women that these days men won’t commit to marriage. Every action has an opposition reaction and women and the feminists are experiencing this now.

    ReplyDelete
  156. @Jesse,

    "What does conservatism have to offer men? Manhood."

    Only if "manhood" is defined as unlimited lifetime obligation to women, when they have no such obligation to you. I call that suckerhood,myself.

    "Too much shaming language? Never in my life would I have thought I'd hear a man complain about "shaming language", that is a woman's complaint."

    LOL, Jesse is too thick to perceive that calling someone a complaining woman because they accurately note that women use shaming language is... classic female shaming language.

    "If a soldier goes to the front to protect his society and the society fails to reproduce itself then the soldier's efforts would have been in vain."

    This sort of absurd chest-thumping is appropriate if there is a battle actually in progress. But the battle is over. Conservatism has been decisively, overwhelmingly, and permanently defeated. The enemy has occupied our countries and installed his puppets in every single institution of importance - schools, universities, churches, the media, politics, economics, and so on. What do you call someone who urges people to support the "society" of an occupied country? That person is not a heroic soldier, but a contemptible collaborator. You are a Vichyite and a Quisling. The real resistance to liberalism is through male separatism.

    ReplyDelete
  157. I was stunned at how openly the men call women “sluts” aka bitches. Eminiem and the rappers kill and rape women in their lyrics and the guys love it (also the women because the rappers don’t mean them of course). Men are not composing sonnets for women at the moment and it’s a big consistent complaint of women that these days men won’t commit to marriage. Every action has an opposition reaction and women and the feminists are experiencing this now.

    Women are not complaining that ALL men are not committing to marriage; they are complaining that DESIRABLE ALPHA MALES are not committing to marriage. Women are profoundly indifferent that betas are available for marital commitment. The thuggish behavior of alpha rappers is not a reaction to feminism and a call for return to traditional marriage; just the opposite, it is the perfection of the trends the feminists have set in motion. In short, the existence of a number of aloof thugs and complaining females who pursue them is the inevitable outcome of female hypergamy unleashed. It is a profound error to think any of this will lead to a return of traditional sexual relations.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Anonymous,

    The feminists have set themselves up in the divorce courts, but it doesn't follow that this has to be a permanent state of affairs. They, however, haven't set themselves up in my house, or in my relationship (but but but the law!). If a woman I'm with acts in an unfemine way then its out the door. So far I've not been stung by divorce or defacto relationships and relationships are important to me so if they don't cut the mustard they're out. If having high standards means I have to be more "desirable" to women to enforce them so be it. Internal restraint matters and I won't marry a women who hasn't got that.

    I don't define manhood as unlimited obligation to women with them owing nothing to you.

    On the point earlier about women being able to move on to another man after a divorce, we’d tell that kind of man to “man up’. Don’t be walked over by women, don’t settle for rubbish behaviour and don’t be won over by an easy smile.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Factory,

    You don't seem to get it. When you're only alternative to "female supremacy" is de facto homo-ism - what Mr. Richardson politely calls male separatism - then conservatives need offer you nothing. All conservatives ask is that you not publicly advocate this radical liberation as it is a cure worse than the disease. Of course, your first step would be to correctly define "femininism's" man-hate as devout dykism and see that the "supremacy" of the modern female IS actually degenerate behavior. In this re-align of your paradigm, you will see that you no longer desire to be "equally" degenerate and instead embrace real Supremacy.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Johnycomelately

    If I were to play poker and I knew one of the players had hidden cards up his sleave, why should I be obligated to continue to play?

    All the traditionalists offer is, "Just stay in the game Jonhy, come on! For old times sakes."

    In addition if traditionalism is as weak as you mention, what does it matter if a very small minority of men don't play ball.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Johnycomelately

    The USSR instituted liberal marriage reforms post WWI and when men stopped playing ball Stalin was forced to change marriage laws to save the country.

    What trads don't get is that there is no such thing as 'male autonomy'. Once men stop playing ball the whole edifice collapses. Isn't it odd that feminists want men to marry? They know the game and the jig is up.

    Can a trad offer anything other than ad hominems?

    ReplyDelete
  162. Jesse_7
    We agree that women have to start playing nice. Some degree of separatism is necessary for this to occur. If women think they can act in any old way and men will put up with it, then they will not change their behavior. Marriage 2.0 or whatever, works on the assumption that men will put up with it and we have to make it known that we won't.

    Congratulations, you've just taken an MRA position that contradicts what you've previously stated.

    Now here's the problem with it:
    We agree that women have to start playing nice.

    I don't agree with that at all. Perhaps you meant to write that women ought or should start "playing nice". That I agree with.

    But the cold, cruel fact is: why should they? What possible reason is there for women to behave in any way remotely like human beings?

    Women are rewarded for rudeness, praised for obnoxiousness, and financially benefit from one-sided treatment that teaches them to be entitled princesses. Only it's not called "rudeness", it is called "assertiveness". It's not called "obnoxiousness", either, it's called, oh, "liberatedness".

    Feminism has created a legal and cultural environment in which the more toxic a woman behaves, the greater her rewards in emotional, physical and financial realms. They don't have to give that up. Not yet anyway.

    As the demographics grind on in a number of countries, as the number of people who actually do something useful continues to decline, as the entire planet slowly comes to resemble the late Roman empire, expect to see the privilege of women decline.

    But not for a while. And in the mean time, a man's mental, emotional, physical and financial well being cannot be just handed over on a silver platter to any old YY chromosome bearing individual to use as some sort of plaything.

    That's the reality of separatism. Men are separating from women because women are too dangerous to be around in many cases.

    I can appreciate that, for the ever dwindling number of traditional women, this is terrible news, because they don't feel it is fair. Women are often concerned about fairness.

    Men tend to be more interested in justice, and right now the grave injustices done to men in the Anglosphere and further out just keep mounting up.

    Separatism of men and women from the dominant culture is the only way to preserve marriage at all, in my opinion. Thus I suggest adding to Mark Richardon's list something about "does she watch a lot of popular TV / read a lot of 'women's magazines'" as a warning sign.

    A woman who spends any time at all viewing Oprah is a potential danger, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Johhnycomelately,

    The fact of the matter is that if men "pull up stakes" the system, financial system etc, won't collapse. Women will simply do more of men's jobs, or more immigrants will be brought in etc.

    If you want a totally obedient wife you have to go to the third world/quasi third world. There the prospect of poverty forces women to stick it out with men. Its not just the fact that women can get money out of divorce settlements or from the government that's at issue these days, they can earn their own wages today, that makes them by definition more independent.

    In that environment you have to offer women something more than financial security. They have to be reasonably "happy" to stick with you. This is a relatively historically new thing and we are the first society and essentially the first generation to live through it. "Happy" is a very flighty state of affairs and we all as a culture and society are having to sit down and scratch our heads as to what we now need to do to make marriages work.

    The left would say monogamous marriage can't work, shack up with a commune or something and have sex with everyone. There's plenty of evidence though that monogamous marriage does work and that it provides the backbone of society.

    If you as an MRA say monogamous marriage can't work then you have to offer something to replace it. You can't simply say "conservatives offer us something". Your something also have to offer something to society and not just to individual men, or the societal lights will go out. If your whole argument is that "the current society will collapse without me" and people will come knocking on my door with offers, well I think that's a pretty weak expectation.

    So one more time what does conservatism have to offer men?

    1. The understanding that the current state of affairs can and should be changed. (I agree that we should recognise that the men's rights groups have primarily carried the fight in the divorce courts and that we should do much more on that front).

    2. A recognition that you don't have to just go along with whatever society is doing. If society is going the wrong way then you can contribute to turning it back. If you’re in doubt as to what society should look like, or how we should behave, then you only have to look at historical precedent which still offers a lot.

    3. A recognition that if you marry a conservative women, and this means that you must embrace conservatism yourself to some degree, you will have a much smaller likelihood of divorce. The stats are in and conservatives don't divorce anywhere near as much as the rest of society does.
    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/10/simple-truth-about-divorce-rate.html

    4. A greater sense of patience, "if you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you". Conservatism doesn’t just look at the immediacy of people's interests but takes a longer term perspective, both personally and societally. The feminists have had their “summer” of liberation and now the future “winter” of perhaps perpetual loneliness and bareness is coming increasing to their minds. When the spasm of liberation is over the basic tasks of living have to go on and ultimately the feminist methods aren’t sustainable for a healthy society, (for instance bringing in more immigrants would be a major dislocation which the feminists most likely wouldn't like).

    5. A greater sense of internal resources. Conservatives have God and longer term societal expectations/norms and reciprocal obligations. This means that you can whether tougher times. You are not an isolated creature purely of material instincts and expectations…

    ReplyDelete
  164. Cont.

    6. A move away from utilitarianism. You don’t judge your relationships simply by how productive they are at any given moment but by other factors too. With such an attitude relationships are more long lasting and not so interchangeable. This allows for deeper and more trusting relationships.

    I’m sure other people have other benefits that conservatism offers men as well.

    Underlying much of the argument here is the accusation that men have been abandoned by conservatism. Men have largely been abandoned but its not by us. In a liberal society each person is in it on their own. Women have also tiltied the field by calling in the state on their side. We, however, do not support and actively oppose this everyone’s in it for themselves, model of society.

    In the past there were many social supports and expectations that helped men be strong as well as individualistic. These aids, however, are being knocked out and we currently have to stand much more together. We don't have the luxury of entirely individualistic attitudes. We do certainly need a stronger "male" consciousness, but this cannot be based simply on what is good for the present.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Anonymous Protestant said,

    ”We agree that women have to start playing nice…

    Congratulations, you've just taken an MRA position that contradicts what you've previously stated.”

    Rubbish conservatism has always required that women should behave well. “Some” separatism is not the same as full or permanent separatism.

    There are many reasons why women should start to change their behavior and I’ve just listed several.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Anonymous Protestant said,

    ”We agree that women have to start playing nice…

    Congratulations, you've just taken an MRA position that contradicts what you've previously stated.”


    Rubbish conservatism has always required that women should behave well.

    Rubbish yourself. You haven't called for women to behave before this, not that I've seen. And traditionalist conservatives have excused bad behavior by women for years, decades, over a generation, all the while demanding that men "man up".

    For example, Lorena Bobbit continues to appear on TV, giving talks, and not one conservative/traditionalist has a problem with that. Imagine the reverse; imagine if a man who had cruelly sexually mutilated his wife were touring the US, making appearances, flogging a book, etc. Why, the "thinking" housewife would have a fit. But what does she say about Bobbit's ongoing media presence?

    Nothing.

    So it is clear that there's no behavior by women so bad some traditionalist won't excuse it.

    “Some” separatism is not the same as full or permanent separatism.

    Nitpicking. You yourself were castigating MRA's for any separatism less than two weeks back.

    There are many reasons why women should start to change their behavior and I’ve just listed several.

    Women as a group will change their behavior when it is no longer profitable for them to continue as they have for years. I have no idea what it will take to bring this about. Perhaps nothing short of a global economic crash.

    Individual women can be appealed to by a variety of means. Again I say this: men and women who don't like the current anti-man culture must separate themselves from it, and likely the first step to take is rejection of popular culture. Such as it is...

    ReplyDelete
  167. Anonymous Protestant said,

    "Rubbish yourself. You haven't called for women to behave before this, not that I've seen."

    You obviously don't read this site nor have you read all of this thread. See near the start at 8:08 where I said of women that they were, "potentially irresponsible by nature [so] they need strong men to tell them to "knock it off".

    "Nitpicking. You yourself were castigating MRA's for any separatism less than two weeks back."

    Where? Quote me. Opposing sexbots as a solution doesn't count.

    You said,

    "Women as a group will change their behavior when it is no longer profitable for them to continue as they have for years."

    The profit is starting to dry up and as it has feminist women are getting angrier. There are numerous such examples referenced on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  168. "and many women are turning away from feminism as its seen as incorporating too hostile an attitude to men."

    BS, Jesse. A growing number of women are rejecting feminism - but not because they have any empathy with the men it has dispossessed. They reject it because they fell swindled - it turned out they cannot "have it all".

    Women never cared about the effects of the Sexual Revolution on average men. Now that it is beginning to have some disagreeable effect on women as well, they suddenly started to reevaluate it.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Kilroy at 4:34 1 Jan,

    Makes a good summary of the MRA position, except when he restates that,

    “Trads feed the culture of female entitlement by encouraging men to defer to women according to rules of chivalry which have become long redundant.”

    We are not deferring to women, we’ve said it till we’re blue in the face. Just because I or others might like to treat women with a degree of curtsey doesn’t mean that I’m deferring to them. The women can do no wrong crowd are not on this site. Also I hope that at least some of the raised points have been answered in latter posts.

    Hollenhund said,

    “A growing number of women are rejecting feminism - but not because they have any empathy with the men it has dispossessed. They reject it because they fell swindled - it turned out they cannot "have it all".”

    Ok fine women’s rejection of feminism may not be for the noblest of reasons but a win is a win, and a rejection of feminism is a rejection of feminism. This shows at least that the feminists aren’t galloping away at the moment. You say women “want it all”? It turns out that one of the things they want is a man. In order to get that they have to “play nice”, “play ball” or any other number of metaphors you can think of. How else can they realistically in large numbers do it? Do you honestly think that men can be legally required to marry women? Feminists might try to encourage marriage through financial imposts on singles, but that’s about as far as they can go. They just can’t have it all their own way and men are currently jacking up.

    Concessions were given to women in the past because marriage rates were stable, they aren’t now. There was also a perception of female social inequality, which has now been dispelled. A clique of women might want to do any number of things but in order for them to succeed their arguments have to at least “appear” reasonable. The growing social consensus, and its out there, is that feminists have gone too far, not that they haven’t gone far enough. Now, consequently, is the time to start clawing ground back, not despairing. And ground is being clawed back, men’s rights groups didn’t exist ten years ago, now they do and their agendas are gaining more and more attention in the public space. You might say “well no thanks to you!” but I’ve read my Warren Farrell too and been informed by the opinions.

    One example In the last years of the Howard term I can remember is listening to debate to end the presumption of single or female custody in the divorce courts in favor of joint custody. Its obvious to say that there’s a long way to go, but it is moving in our direction. If its not I’m willing to be corrected.

    And before anyone jumps up I’ll say, again, that I’m opposed to permanent separatism and some of the asocial liberal elements of the men’s movement, not to a men’s movement.

    ReplyDelete
  170. [My reply to Hollenhund's in the blogger bin. I'll repost.]

    Kilroy at 4:34 1 Jan,

    Makes a good summary of the MRA position, except when he restates that,

    “Trads feed the culture of female entitlement by encouraging men to defer to women according to rules of chivalry which have become long redundant.”

    We are not deferring to women, we’ve said it till we’re blue in the face. Just because I or others might like to treat women with a degree of curtsey doesn’t mean that I’m deferring to them. The women can do no wrong crowd are not on this site. Also I hope that at least some of the raised points have been answered in latter posts.

    Hollenhund said,

    “A growing number of women are rejecting feminism - but not because they have any empathy with the men it has dispossessed. They reject it because they fell swindled - it turned out they cannot "have it all".”

    Ok fine women’s rejection of feminism may not be for the noblest of reasons but a win is a win, and a rejection of feminism is a rejection of feminism. This shows at least that the feminists aren’t galloping away at the moment. You say women “want it all”? It turns out that one of the things they want is a man. In order to get that they have to “play nice”, “play ball” or any other number of metaphors you can think of. How else can they realistically in large numbers do it? Do you honestly think that men can be legally required to marry women? Feminists might try to encourage marriage through financial imposts on singles, but that’s about as far as they can go. They just can’t have it all their own way and men are currently jacking up.

    Concessions were given to women in the past because marriage rates were stable, they aren’t now. There was also a perception of female social inequality, which has now been dispelled. A clique of women might want to do any number of things but in order for them to succeed their arguments have to at least “appear” reasonable. The growing social consensus, and its out there, is that feminists have gone too far, not that they haven’t gone far enough. Now, consequently, is the time to start clawing ground back, not despairing. And ground is being clawed back, men’s rights groups didn’t exist ten years ago, now they do and their agendas are gaining more and more attention in the public space. You might say “well no thanks to you!” but I’ve read my Warren Farrell too and been informed by the opinions.

    One example In the last years of the Howard term I can remember is listening to debate to end the presumption of single or female custody in the divorce courts in favor of joint custody. Its obvious to say that there’s a long way to go, but it is moving in our direction. If its not I’m willing to be corrected.

    And before anyone jumps up I’ll say, again, that I’m opposed to permanent separatism and some of the asocial liberal elements of the men’s movement, not to a men’s movement.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Third times a charm,

    Kilroy at 4:34 1 Jan,

    Makes a good summary of the MRA position, except when he restates that,

    “Trads feed the culture of female entitlement by encouraging men to defer to women according to rules of chivalry which have become long redundant.”

    We are not deferring to women, we’ve said it till we’re blue in the face. Just because I or others might like to treat women with a degree of curtsey doesn’t mean that I’m deferring to them. The women can do no wrong crowd are not on this site. Also I hope that at least some of the raised points have been answered in latter posts.

    Hollenhund said,

    “A growing number of women are rejecting feminism - but not because they have any empathy with the men it has dispossessed. They reject it because they fell swindled - it turned out they cannot "have it all".”

    Ok fine women’s rejection of feminism may not be for the noblest of reasons but a win is a win, and a rejection of feminism is a rejection of feminism. This shows at least that the feminists aren’t galloping away at the moment. You say women “want it all”? It turns out that one of the things they want is a man. In order to get that they have to “play nice”, “play ball” or any other number of metaphors you can think of. How else can they realistically in large numbers do it? Do you honestly think that men can be legally required to marry women? Feminists might try to encourage marriage through financial imposts on singles, but that’s about as far as they can go. They just can’t have it all their own way and men are currently jacking up.

    Concessions were given to women in the past because marriage rates were stable, they aren’t now. There was also a perception of female social inequality, which has now been dispelled. A clique of women might want to do any number of things but in order for them to succeed their arguments have to at least “appear” reasonable. The growing social consensus, and its out there, is that feminists have gone too far, not that they haven’t gone far enough. Now, consequently, is the time to start clawing ground back, not despairing. And ground is being clawed back, men’s rights groups didn’t exist ten years ago, now they do and their agendas are gaining more and more attention in the public space. You might say “well no thanks to you!” but I’ve read my Warren Farrell too and been informed by the opinions.

    One example In the last years of the Howard term I can remember is listening to debate to end the presumption of single or female custody in the divorce courts in favor of joint custody. Its obvious to say that there’s a long way to go, but it is moving in our direction. If its not I’m willing to be corrected.

    And before anyone jumps up I’ll say, again, that I’m opposed to permanent separatism and some of the asocial liberal elements of the men’s movement, not to a men’s movement.

    ReplyDelete
  172. "Women never cared about the effects of the Sexual Revolution on average men. Now that it is beginning to have some disagreeable effect on women as well, they suddenly started to reevaluate it."

    That's rubbish mate...

    The women I know and am related to, love their fathers, brothers and husbands..

    It's the self centred sluts who don't care..

    Same as the PUA's..

    Just care about themselves..

    Like attracts like..

    ReplyDelete
  173. Jesse, I have to agree with MRAs here. Women have never created civilisations and they never will. If men withdraw from society, the society will collapse.

    Import of more of the barbarians will only speed up the collapse, not prevent in. That's why the present suicidal course has to be stopped before it is too late.

    As for Laura Thinking Housewife, I don't remember her supportng Lorena Bobbit. BTW, the woman is remarried, isn't she? May be if men stopped rewarding women like her with marriage, the situation would change.

    ReplyDelete
  174. "Jesse, I have to agree with MRAs here. Women have never created civilisations and they never will. If men withdraw from society, the society will collapse."

    Exactly.. Women cannot do without men..Men are the backbone of civilization. There would be NO civilization without men.... Deep sigh..

    Silly delusional bints.. Shakes head..

    ReplyDelete
  175. "That's rubbish mate..."

    No it isn't, "mate". The Sexual Revolution has dispossessed average beta chumps, towards whom never had any meaningful empathy, by giving female hypergamy free reign. Women never cared about the beta chumps who got marginalized in the new sexual marketplace. But now it has become clear that the current sexual marketplace can disadvantage women in some ways, women start criticizing sex-positive feminism.

    Women didn't give a damn about the atrocious practices of divorce courts and the victimization of divorced men 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Now that women's behavior has become so disgusting that men are avoiding commitment, women suddenly realize there might just be a problem, after all. And the only reason they are making some half-assed attempts at appearing to care about men's problems is that they're increasingly worried that they won't find a so-called "eligible" man to lasso into an LTR.

    Same thing with excessive alimony. Now that women are required to pay it in increasing numbers, they suddenly see it for the outrage it is.

    Women don't give a damn about the problems of others until they themselves begin to suffer massively.

    ReplyDelete
  176. "Ok fine women’s rejection of feminism may not be for the noblest of reasons but a win is a win, and a rejection of feminism is a rejection of feminism."

    If a woman rejects feminism because it has proven to be to inefficient at giving women what they want - in other words: extracting resources from men (money, commitment, validation, attention) for the benefit of women -, then I want to have nothing to do with her.

    ReplyDelete
  177. One of my comments got eaten again. Damn, blogger.com sucks donkey balls.

    ReplyDelete
  178. "The women I know and am related to, love their fathers, brothers and husbands..

    It's the self centred sluts who don't care."

    Too bad the former can turn into the latter at the drop of a hat. Happens all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Kathy said:
    "Exactly.. Women cannot do without men..Men are the backbone of civilization. There would be NO civilization without men.... Deep sigh..

    Silly delusional bints.. Shakes head.. "

    This actually sums up the problem I see with a lot of conservatives...

    They just can't seem to wrap their head around the concept that many men are angry enough, and disassociated from society enough, that they are GLEEFULLY awaiting it's downfall. Some of them want this for no other reason than to be able to point in the face of suffering women and LAUGH so hard at her...

    Conservatives have VASTLY underestimated the level of animosity 'beta' men have for the world we live in. Conservatives have vastly OVERestimated the value of this society for the average guy.

    I dare say a good portion of men, given a 'revolutionary' time, wouldn't so much as cross the street to save a woman anymore.

    And that is 100% the fault of women themselves.

    What I have almost NEVER seen, is a conservative lecturing women like they do men.

    Why is that? Is that because women are 'gentler'? Because they aren't "all like that"?

    See, the problem here is you guys say you're a 'small' group.

    Like the Republicans in the US, of the Conservatives in most UK-colonial countries...

    Nope, no political power there. No 'natural in' therre either.

    And these conservatives SURE DO want to help men...right after they 'man up' and prove they deserve it I suppose.

    I am merely here to tell you guys what you look like from outside the group. This is something I get benefit of daily, although not always with such altruistic intentions behind it.

    I don't want to see you guys fail.

    Problem is, you're so far off target, you can't help but fail, regardless of effort.

    To the average guy, there is absolutely no visible difference between your 'man up' and the feminist 'man up'.

    And it's not up to men to 'learn' either.

    If you are opposing feminism, you're doing a piss-poor job of it, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Factory, you seem unable to grasp the difference between the mainstream conservatives and those who call themselves traditionalists.

    Also, what makes you think that men will do better than women when Rome falls? Outside of a few Alphas, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  181. I agree with the last Anonymous, if our society falls it won't be soon and a long drawn out collapse won't help men. Women might not be able to create effective civilisations but this one has already been created and they only have to keep the wheels turning for a while.

    Factory,

    "To the average guy, there is absolutely no visible difference between your 'man up' and the feminist 'man up'."

    Without wanting to irritate people I'll tell an army story. We get young guys in all the time whose main priority is to toughen up, be more effective and be "men". We don't just tell them to "be men" we train them, coach them, encourage them etc, sometimes punish them but that's usually a minority of the time, limited to certain situations but that has its place too. Our "man up" is an exhortation because we want men to succeed and not fail. The feminist man up on the other hand is an accusation and statement of superiority. Indeed they go out of their way to make it hard for men to do this.

    The new guys look at the hard warrant officers, usually with awe, and say can I ever be like that? And then they try harder. If a new guy walks into the army and says "I'm fine as I am", then they’re not suitable.

    Our society increasingly lacks this "training" for men and the men's rights movement has written extensively about it. The new guys in the army don't have a problem with being told to "man up" from time to time because they know that they’ll get assistance getting there. In return for this they are often incredibly loyal to the army. If traditionalists can offer no practical assistance to men then I agree that they are woefully remiss.

    If guys feel abandoned by society then they will be pissed, and I'm pissed at society too, however there are still options out there for men, and we can do much more to help each other and we should.

    ReplyDelete
  182. The Army analogy is actually pretty apt, considering the treatment they get after they 'man up' and defend their country...

    No healthcare.

    Public vilification.

    Predatory women marrying / having kids with them for benefits, then divorcing them while they're overseas..

    Crappy pay for many.

    TOP BONUS: You too can die to defend 'the rights of women' as the Secretary of State for your country has so aptly put it.

    Are you seeing my point yet?

    Do I need to go on?

    You can say that you are 'training' men to be more assertive and to stick up for themselves. As an MRA I'm saying that a man can have all the 'good attitude' in the world and STILL get run over like he's not even there by the Law, Society, and Hypergamy.

    You offer, as a group, absolutely NOTHING to men of any value. And frankly, I find that to be unconscionable. And I blame it very much on the refusal of many 'conservatives' to absorb one simple thought:

    Nothing you do, or say, will EVER make Feminists 'like' you. You will ALWAYS be the Boogyman to Feminist leftists. So why, why, WHY the FUCK are you people placating them? Why all the 'tiptoeing' around issues?

    Why the focus on Gay Marriage, when No Fault Divorce is the REAL problem?

    Why the focus on "traditional values" while COMPLETELY ignoring the virtual impossibility of living by them?

    Conservatives, if they're not actively supporting Feminists hoping to get better 'woman-cred', are doing the one thing that enables Feminism more than any other thing: Chivalry.

    They are merely two prongs in the same pincer movement.

    I really wish this were not so, but look at this thread. Seriously look at it. MRAs have come here and repeatedly asked "What do Conservatives offer to men?"

    We get nothing but "man up" back.

    Unfair laws?

    Man up.

    Social conditions that rip the hearts out of the vast majority of men?

    Man up.

    Unable to find a woman that doesn't place material wealth above all things?

    Your fault for looking in the 'wrong' places. Man up.

    There is functionally no difference between conservatives and Feminists when it comes to actual laws/customs pushed for, at the absolute best.

    At the worst, the Feminist movement COULDN'T EXIST without 'conservatives' propping the whole bleeding mess up in the first place. And frankly, that's a Hell of a lot closer to the truth than anything I've seen from the trads here.

    This is not some kind of 'shape up or we'll get you" sort of thing. This is one man concerned with these issues telling the men who are literally enabling this injustice to continue, that more of the same is NOT productive, and you are making things WORSE, not better.

    Of course, there's a signifigant minority of MRAs that wish your ineffective attempts to shame men even more than Feminists already have to continue. Those people who are salivating at the thought of the collapse of the West, for example...

    But hey, you're convinced you're right...keep on fucking things up for the rest of us. At least your conscience will be clear.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Factory, I'm not sure who you are really addressing with your tirades. You keep talking to posters on this blog as if they occupy positions of power and can change the laws but won't do it, because presumably they hate men, just like feminists do.

    Also it is quite possible to live in a traditional manner if one really wishes. Our life is what we make out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Johnycomelately

    Well, Factory just pretty much summed up the whole thread.

    And odly enough the Trads still wont get it.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Factory is a delusional fool. His rants are getting tiring. There are very few traditional conservatives out there and even less in any position of power (whether to change laws or influence the culture). If you haven't noticed the ''establishment'' is either neoconservative, ''conservative'', right-liberal, left-liberal or liberal in general. Stop whinning and blaming the few traditional conservatives (who are mostly powerless) for the ills of liberal society.

    ReplyDelete
  186. "Tirades" is it? Hmm.

    Anyway, again my point is that conservatives, as is evidenced by this very article, are making like MRAs are evil beings off on the wrong path, or even unknowingly supporting the feminist agenda of social de(con)struction.

    What I am "tirading" about is the bold assertion that conservatives offer men a solution, that in ANY way differs from what Feminists demand of men, in terms of ultimate outcome. MRAs contend that Chivalry and Feminism are the same thing with different suits on. That is ultimately the sentiment behind this whole disagreement, as outlined by this article.

    Conservatives contend that MRAs are 'just like Feminists' in supporting a culture of 'autonomy', where the greater social good is subordinate to personal whim.

    MRAs are contending that this prevailing culture is a result of pandering to the whims of females in power, and the 'autonomy' we suggest is merely a response lacking more appealing alternatives.

    No one, but NO one in the Mens Movement wants what is happening. What we are doing, actually, is collectively 'putting women in their place' so to speak. We are telling women as a whole, what they look like to men as a whole. We are telling politicians that men, as a gender, matter in their own right. We are telling those same folks that their participation in these reforms is only likely to remain optional for so long...

    ReplyDelete
  187. [cont]
    If conservatives were pushing inside their own groups, and in their churches, for more consideration of men and a realistic view of actual society and laws...then conservative groups and churches might grow in membership.

    There are numerous ways in which this conservative position of yours not only enables, but flat out co-works with Feminist goals. Thing is, it's often sold to you with misleading packaging.

    Is it "Godly" to support your wife while she sleeps with half your friends? Is it "Godly" to admonish a man unable to keep up with onerous child support levels? Is it "Godly" to demand that men participate in a dangerous institution, one which stands a signifigant chance of destroying his life forever, merely to placate the feelings of women who would rather that, than change their own behaviour?

    If you wanted a tirade, this is the best you're going to get. I'm quite tired of trying to point things out to people who just can't be bothered to see. The proof is in the pudding, 'traditionalists' offer nothing of signifigant value to men (even though, counter to your claims, 'traditionalists' have massive political clout in the form of the Republican base, the Tea Party, etc...).

    No you might not be some kind of political heavyweight. Neither am I, nor are ANY of the MRAs I know. In fact, nearly all of us are in the bottom of the economic strata.

    And yet, somehow, all these deadbroke dads managed to get mens issues on the political radar. Where it may look to you like this happened relatively quickly, this could only be because of your relatively new status. This has been a 'thing' for me for going on 2 decades now. It was VERY slow going for most of that time, sure...but we got it going.

    Now, take these 'traditionalists', who "really like men"...

    Where, exactly, is the concern for men (aside from as abject failures)? Where is the analysis of social problems from a male friendly perspective? Where are these so-called "traditional values" when it means supporting a limitation on female behaviour?

    What, exactly, is the conservative response when faced with 40% single parent births, plunging educational achievement, a Divorce rate that is only decreasing because the Marriage Rate is decreasing even faster, the highest disparity in unemployment between the sexes in recorded history, a male suicide rate between 3-9 times more often than for females (depending on age), fatherlessness fast becoming the social norm (along with the attendant social problems)...

    All of this, is met with "man up"???

    Honest to God, I can't for the life of me understand why you guys don't push in your circles for change. Church attendance dropping to all-time lows? Directly correlated with concessions to feminism. Why haven't you demanded change?

    More importantly, why are you attacking those who, at long last, finally ARE demanding change?

    ReplyDelete
  188. Traditional conservatives don't get it? The few traditional conservatives out there DO get it.

    A traditional conservative wonders why the West should even be saved --- charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/12/should-western-civilization-be-saved.html

    The problem with MRA's/PUA's/Gamers is that they don't care about the West and even if they do care they don't know how to build a civilization. The few traditional conservatives out there usually are thinking of community, society, God and things alike.

    ReplyDelete
  189. "The problem with MRA's/PUA's/Gamers is that they don't care about the West and even if they do care they don't know how to build a civilization. The few traditional conservatives out there usually are thinking of community, society, God and things alike."

    I don't know if you're aware of how funny stuff like this is, so I'll let you in on something.

    First off, I publish a PDF mag that is basically a summation of some of the best Mon-o-sphere articles I can find. Sometimes people like this, sometimes they don't. I've tried to include as wide ranging of a perspective as I could, right from the outset, and for very specific reasons.

    As a Canadian, I watch US politics with the usual mixture of revulsion and horror, but I recognize the same devotion to partisan thinking in my own Parliament. The truth is, no single group involved has all of any one answer...only by mining the entire collective of male thought can a true picture be produced.

    I am not a religious person at all, for example, but I find the anti-religious aspect of Feminism more than a little disturbing. If I could find articles like that, believe me I'd publish them.

    I think all men, regardless of their religious or cultural background, need to step back and take an honest look at where we are, and what WE want for ourselves. It appears many traditionalists are convinced that given half the chance, men would bolt out the door. To me, that says that you're asking way too much of them...that the reward for participation is too little incentive to commit to the risk.

    It's like saying to a guy "I'll give you $100 to jump off this building."

    But to suggest that PUAs, MRAs, MGTOWs, and any of the other acronyms consider themselves part of the same movement is laughable. Personally, I agree with you 100%. They, however, likely would not.

    And that's the point of why I find it funny that you would lump them all together as 'the same', when they themselves seem to despise each other (PUAs calling MGTOWs weenies that can't get laid, MGTOWs calling PUAs 'pussy beggars', PUAs calling MRAs 'whiny assholes', MRAs calling PUAs 'crass'...etc)

    What you choose to call yourself is irrelevant...only the ideas matter.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Factory,

    You're starting to sound like an ideologue.

    Again, IF YOUR ONLY ALTERNATIVE is de facto homo-ism, i.e., male separatism, euphemistically-speaking, then conservatives need offer you nothing. Conservatives are attempting to "man up" and "woman up" BY BEING CONSERVATIVE. You WANT TO BE liberal and it is why you have joined a male liberationist movement that deceptively labels itself a "men's" movement. Men DON'T move towards radical autonomy in order to combat radical liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Factory your comment about PUA's, Gamers, MRA's and MGTOW reminds me about the failure of conservatism (being infected with liberalism + being divided) and why traditional conservatism is mostly dead.

    From the great conservative betrayal --- www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018301.html

    ''"The right" is largely a collection of such single-issue groups, each convinced they are focusing their firepower at the most important point, each convinced that the winning of this single issue will cause a wider renaissance. Secular nationalists do it with race and ethnicity, assuming that a newly proud British nation (or whatever) or white race will sweep to power and resolve all other moral and social problems. Libertarians think that by cutting back state interference family life will be encouraged, independence and self-reliance brought back, and all will be well again. Christians think that if we all converted to Christianity all our problems would go away--perhaps some at your site think this. But even Christianity on its own is not enough. What is lacking is an idea of man and community as a holistic whole--spiritual, ethnic/racial, moral, economic, etc. Even a Christian man with a strong faith and solid family life will be something of a lop-sided individual, will still be lacking something deep and important, and masculine, if he does not care about his own heritage and is willing to see his land over-run by aliens, and allows his freedom of speech to be curtailed in the face of aggressive minority pressure. This is why the "religious right" cannot really claim to be holding the line any more than nationalists or libertarians.''

    ReplyDelete
  192. Thordaddy, I've seen your arguments before, and what I'm telling you is that men will go the PUA route, and the pay-for-sex route, and the hardcore porn and a towel route (which includes sex-bot type appliances....what, you've never seen the wall upon wall of dildoes at the local sex shop? Who did you think used those? "Gays"?)

    Men are withdrawing from women, but they are doing so VERY reluctantly, and with constant pleas of "Just give me a reason not to go...just one, please"...and they're met with derision for packing their bags.

    Thordaddy, you are quitelike the petty thug who stood on the playground calling smaller boys "fag" before beating them up for fun. You see your own fears reflected in everything. This is NOT about 'homosexuality', it's about finding a way, ANY way, to stop this crap so men CAN have relationships again.

    Telling men to 'man up' and support a system that crushes them....or telling men "it sucks, but if we work at it for a while we might change things, show some restraint and some self respect and we'll get through this"....

    Which advice do YOU think makes more sense?

    ReplyDelete
  193. Personally Factory I believe in the separation from liberal society and the creation of segregated traditional conservative communities because it's literally impossible to change a few things. The entire system is corrupt and will lash out against anything that defies it. It's better for it to be destroyed and that's what the few traditional conservatives are thinking of doing.

    A traditional conservative wonders why the West should even be saved --- charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/12/should-western-civilization-be-saved.html

    ReplyDelete
  194. Elizabeth, that very well may be...but 'the Right' is remarkably uniform when it comes to their response to mens issues.

    "Man Up".

    You may be contending that the right is too fractured to achieve any kind of consensus.

    I contend that the very FACT that there is a huge, gaping moral vacuum right in the center of the Right might, just might, be the source of that problem.

    Everyone is dancing around the ugly truths that have resulted from feminism. No one wants to paint women in a bad light, even when doing so is needed.

    All engaging in Chivalry, afraid to address the REAL issues.

    So they prance on about Abortion. Or Gay Marriage. Or Intelligent Design.

    This fracturing of the right is, again, a RESULT of your Chivalrous refusal to admonish women, and your blind devotion to 'manning up', even when said protections are neither warranted, nor deserved.

    As I have said before, I am not religious, having attended Church less than 5 times in my life. But you sure don't have to be a Theologian to see how far religion has strayed to accomodate Feminist thinking.

    The hypocritical rot most of you refer to as Ecumenical Hierarchy is bound to fail....all because of attempts to placate the most openly anti-christian movement in the History of the world.

    "Man up" indeed. Splinter and beam, stones and glass houses, etc....

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.