tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post4096382126888099122..comments2024-03-02T12:39:23.745+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Clarissa: motherhood castrates womenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-3739702649552361932011-01-20T16:31:03.693+11:002011-01-20T16:31:03.693+11:00Something to think about.Something to think about.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21898720595610891332011-01-20T15:34:07.347+11:002011-01-20T15:34:07.347+11:00Jesse,
I'm not advocating marriage to anyone ...Jesse,<br /><br />I'm not advocating marriage to anyone unless both man and woman have a strong faith in God. Any marriage without that faith is built on nothing. <br /><br />In reality, I am speaking out against those who collectively advocate for male separatism based on a general aversion to woman. If you desire to separate from the perilous world of woman then it should be a personal choice and pursuit.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-20671327871034839162011-01-20T14:55:39.557+11:002011-01-20T14:55:39.557+11:00Thoraddy,
I think supremacy is a good thing to st...Thoraddy,<br /><br />I think supremacy is a good thing to strife for, however, according to the law we're equal. A woman can leave, she can do all sorts of things. In my experience women love you till they don't. This is a fragile state of affairs for men. The other kicker is that when women leave they do so angrily, "you haven't measured up to my expectations" etc. In such an instance they feel little concern for the consequences of their actions. <br /><br />I'm very willing to fight for society and add my weight to it, but if I was to get married today (as in right now) I'd find myself in a very perilous position. I'd be happier knowing that I was strong enough to take whatever happened, and then get married.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-91086513006821166572011-01-20T14:43:50.950+11:002011-01-20T14:43:50.950+11:00Jesse,
The first thing you need to ask yourself i...Jesse,<br /><br />The first thing you need to ask yourself is whether you believe in Supremacy?<br /><br />If the answer is "yes" then you start on a course of "defining" and then striving towards Supremacy.<br /><br />If the answer is "no" then you are in a state of anti-Supremacy. You have explicitly acknowledged your inferior state. Why you want to be there is a question in need of an answer?<br /><br />Now, this seems simplistic until you actually have to think about it. But make no mistake, a man that has no solution to his own conundrum can have no answer for another man's conundrum. Relationships are too dynamic for a-one-size-fits-all solution. The best ones are hard to destroy BUT so are the worst ones. You have to pick and choose but you can't abandon altogether. And any man that tells you running is the only solution is no man at all because men always keep the ability to fight for what's right as a decisive solution.<br /><br />At a practical level, I train so as to back up every word I speak with knuckles, knees and elbows. I train so as to let others know that I take my life and the life of my children and their mother with deadly seriousness. It's something to wake up for every single day. A call for separatism is a call to stay asleep.<br /><br />Seek to exercise your maximum moral autonomy at all times. You will stand above the radically autonomous masses and attract those worth attracting and repel those worthy of repelling. You should feel inspired to partake in a great battle both personally and publicly; or you simply give in to debilitating despair.<br /><br />If there is a more specific question, I will try and answer it.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14016019214546317112011-01-20T13:45:13.465+11:002011-01-20T13:45:13.465+11:00Thordaddy,
Its not that I disagree with your posi...Thordaddy,<br /><br />Its not that I disagree with your position but the point was made what should men today do? What responses should be made to the current sitaution? Thanks.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-11131551238451219262011-01-20T10:56:10.158+11:002011-01-20T10:56:10.158+11:00slwerner,
Another problem you're having is di...slwerner,<br /><br />Another problem you're having is distinguishing between a generic notion of autonomy and the highly conceptualized notion of radical autonomy premised on the idea that one may be absolutely free in an entirely physical realm. Of course, such a thing is impossible outside of self-annihilation. When Mr. Richardson talks of autonomy in terms of self-creation, the subject must either ALWAYS BE in a state of self-creation so as to prove one's autonomy or they must manifest in the physical world as a particular creation. But in order to prove one's autonomy in face of this imposition (the created state), one chooses any number of radically autonomous natures, namely, the homosexual, the atheist, the anarchist, the jihadist, etc.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-55461590556091246332011-01-20T10:42:37.154+11:002011-01-20T10:42:37.154+11:00slwerner,
If the modern female can legally fornic...slwerner,<br /><br />If the modern female can legally fornicate, abort and divorce at will, how is it claimed that she is in a superior position? If you were allowed to LEGALLY self-annihilate spiritually, intellectual and physically, would you call this absolute freedom?<br /><br />What of a "collective" call for male SEPARATISM? Is there nothing paradoxical in that call? Shouldn't the separatist stand ALONE like the radical autonomist he is perceived to be?<br /><br />If Clarissa denigrates motherhood and you equate that with "feminism" <i>just because</i> (not because it represents something feminine or does it?), what does this say of your comprehension of reality?<br /><br />The fact is, you keep saying that you can't comprehend me and I can't comprehend you. I comprehend you just fine. You are waffling back in forth between states of radical autonomy and nuggets of truth. You don't need to lecture thordaddy on the battle at hand. I know full well the environment in which we reside. It is one where all communications are breaking down, separatism is calling from every corner and technology is immobilizing us. In short, we are all progressing towards a state of radical autonomy and self-annihilating in the process.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-42933811627604779482011-01-20T09:54:52.348+11:002011-01-20T09:54:52.348+11:00Slwerner said,
"Autonomy is simply developin...Slwerner said,<br /><br />"Autonomy is simply developing ones self as an individual, not as some group-thinking cultist"<br /><br />Ok but are you saying the men's movement doesn't have group-think?<br /><br />Aside from that you make some fairly good points.<br /><br />You say,<br /><br />"Nor is autonomy “self-love”."<br /><br />Where does loyalty come into it? If its ok for men to establish themselves and do what they want, why shouldn't women? Should monogamy apply to men as well? One vision of a traditionalist male is a patriarch overseeing his family, why do you accuse him of being a cultist? He is a strong man not a patsy following orders. Nonetheless he recognises he has obligations and not just prerogatives. Please don’t say the patriarch died with marriage 2.0 because your argument isn't simply that its harder to be a proper man but also that every man should figure everything out for themself and do their own thingJesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-28701048870950915532011-01-20T08:36:57.437+11:002011-01-20T08:36:57.437+11:003 of 3
The other cold hard reality you seem unable...3 of 3<br />The other cold hard reality you seem unable to comprehend is that there are simply more good men than there are marriage-worthy women today. This means that many good, non-“homosexual” men will not be able to fins a woman who would be in their interest to marry. This is not the fault of themen alone, but even more so the fault of the women who chosen to be sluts, entitlement princesses, career-first/only, or any combination thereof – and who have thus eliminated themselves as martial material. Again, a fairly simple concept you seem unable to grasp.<br /><br />Pangloss - <i>”what does RADICAL AUTONOMY look like if not a "man's" movement towards de facto homo-ism, i.e., the spiritual, intellectual and sexual aversion for woman?”</i><br /><br />Even though you’ve utterly FAILED to describe the MRM, I’ll ask you the question that I doubt you’ll be able to answer:<br /><br />What is your proposed alternative for the real world today?slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-4452128598751014532011-01-20T08:36:37.261+11:002011-01-20T08:36:37.261+11:002 of 3
Pangloss -”Why we call it "feminism&qu...2 of 3<br />Pangloss -<i>”Why we call it "feminism" and not devout dykism remains a mystery.”</i><br /><br />Who’d this “we”? I’ve never seen anyone else adopt your inane terminology. Yes, your matriarch Laura Woods once tried to make some sense out of it, but even she moved away from your empty and confusing drivel rather quickly. <br /><br />Pangloss - <i>”Your movement is but a liberationist movement. A movement towards self-annihilation.”</i><br /><br />No. Again you seem unable to comprehend anything that anyone else has written. It’s more of a “corrective” movement using what remaining power we as men have to try to put the genie of liberated female sexuality back into the box (or, at least limit it’s damage). And, the cold hard reality is that marriage isn’t even necessary to have children any more. A couple of educational comments posted by one <i>Oak</i> (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/dads-and-trucks/#comment-4779 & http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/dads-and-trucks/#comment-4782) - not that you’ll A) read them, nor B) be able to understand them.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-62919797787008749582011-01-20T08:36:20.185+11:002011-01-20T08:36:20.185+11:001 of 3
”Your entire spiel is based on the idea tha...1 of 3<br /><i>”Your entire spiel is based on the idea that man is in an inferior position to "female supremacy."</i><br /><br />Um…have you somehow missed the obvious again? Men have been put into an inferior position, especially in regards to the laws and the courts. The prime thrust of the MRM has been to seek “equity”, not “equality” (there is a difference) for men under the law.<br /><br />T - <i>”It's in this "equality" that you promote male separatism based on a general aversion for woman (radical autonomy) JUST LIKE your "feminist" counterparts.”</i><br /><br />BS! Your just too full of yourself to actually read/listen to what anyone else has to say. It is not an aversion to women but rather an aversion to Marriage 2.0 in a contract between a man, the state, and an unworthy women. I’m not sure how that can be so difficult for you to understand.<br /><br />You know who you remind me of? The character <i>Dr. Pangloss</i>, who had his own stupid little pet theory that he went about espousing regardless of whether it was either appropriate or applicable. I think I’ll just start referring to you thusly.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-74664775726961018162011-01-20T08:06:35.671+11:002011-01-20T08:06:35.671+11:00slwerner,
Another point is that the likes of Clar...slwerner,<br /><br />Another point is that the likes of Clarissa confound the "gamer's" main thrust which is the female desire for Alpha man all the time. Clarissa WANTS TO BE Alpha. Clarissa desires to be "Butch," pseudo-Alpha... Anti-man. <br /><br />And you call this "feminism..." Something pertaining to femininity... Where.is.it?Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-55884350203042026602011-01-20T07:58:07.894+11:002011-01-20T07:58:07.894+11:00slwerner,
Your entire spiel is based on the idea ...slwerner,<br /><br />Your entire spiel is based on the idea that man is in an inferior position to "female supremacy." So right from the outset we see where your desire for "equality" originates. It's in this "equality" that you promote male separatism based on a general aversion for woman (radical autonomy) JUST LIKE your "feminist" counterparts. "Feminists" also promote a dual female separatism based on an aversion to man. Why we call it "feminism" and not devout dykism remains a mystery.<br /><br />Your movement is but a liberationist movement. A movement towards self-annihilation. <br /><br />But how do you REALLY PROVE that you are RADICALLY autonomous? Go homo... Declare your atheism... Promote anarchism... Call a general aversion for woman a "man's" movement. <br /><br />No one ever tells the truth and gets accused of being liberal.<br /><br />Again, what does RADICAL AUTONOMY look like if not a "man's" movement towards de facto homo-ism, i.e., the spiritual, intellectual and sexual aversion for woman?Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-45922904157477391052011-01-20T06:15:50.344+11:002011-01-20T06:15:50.344+11:00Sorry, but I just can't take these people seri...Sorry, but I just can't take these people seriously. This recycled twaddle was stale when *I* was at university. <br /><br />There has to be an end to the analysis of stupidity. The point is to offer an alternative. How hard can this be? These people have absolutely nothing of substance to offer to anyone. For God's sake I've known 15-year-olds who had more depth and independence of mind and heart, and more sophisticated political opinions, that this monster of banality.<br /><br />She (or her sister) also doesn't pass the smell test for simple honesty:<br /><br /><i> During preliminary interviews with housewives [her sister] saw that they had one thing in common: an extremely infantilized mode of behavior. Whenever the conversation didn't go exactly as they wanted, they would become highly emotional, raise their voices, become irritable, cry, make unreasonable demands.</i><br /><br />Yeah, sure they did. And I am Marie of Roumania. Every word rings false. <br /><br />(And just to get completely trivial here - because I don't see these women as anything but trivial:<br /><br /><i>Less and less women will be "choosing" to abandon economic independence...</i><br /><br />I would think a professor of literature, even if it isn't English literature, would know how to use "less" and "fewer" correctly. Inane <i>and</i> illiterate.)Rohan Sweenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15932349424344927822011-01-20T02:56:50.701+11:002011-01-20T02:56:50.701+11:00[2 of 2]
Feminism has been no small part in “freei...[2 of 2]<br />Feminism has been no small part in “freeing” to be sexually liberated, which has lead to a large proportion of women not seeking out a sole partner to build a relationship and life with, but rather for that group of women to “compete” for the most desirable men at the apex. [I’m sure that I’m telling you nothing that you aren’t already aware of]<br /><br />The problem today is not that men are seeking to be autonomous near so much as it is that woman are seeking to be sexually rebellious (relative to Gods plan). Thus, it is actually quite logical that men would want to return to the old system wherein they didn’t reward female promiscuity by offering up their lives and goods to unworthy women. <br /><br />I don’t see how you cannot see that the necessary “corrective” action for the situation we are in now is going to require that some significant portion of men refuse to marry (as there are not as many worthy woman). <br /><br />It’s hardly a perfect solution, but I see nothing better being offered up as an alternative that has a reasonable chance of success.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-23704674102830745052011-01-20T02:56:35.712+11:002011-01-20T02:56:35.712+11:00@Mark R: [1 of 2]
Getting back to what I touched ...@Mark R: [1 of 2]<br /><br />Getting back to what I touched on earlier, I don’t see personal autonomy necessarily leading to “modernism” (I’m not clear on what you mean by that, but I’m guessing you would include the modern tendency to personal selfishness and sexual promiscuity?)<br /><br />The idea that if everyone is given the freedom to choose, they will uniformly choose what might be considered anti-social (or, anti-societal) paths simply hasn’t been borne out in human history.<br /><br />People have always had such choices to make, limited by only what those around them would allow them to get away with, and yet great societies have arisen never-the-less, and even without the benefit of Christianity. <br /><br />The simple fact is that (as the Manosphere has re-illuminated) only a small percentage of men benefit from loose sexual mores. Thus, there has long been incentive for most men to support social system which enforce monogamy (for most). Key to doing so (and it’s a huge key, at that) was the understanding that “slut” weren’t desirable as wives. There has historically been a penalty for women who would become promiscuous.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-44600593680561649642011-01-20T02:39:50.021+11:002011-01-20T02:39:50.021+11:00[2 of 2]
Now, in the past, once established, a man...[2 of 2]<br />Now, in the past, once established, a man could have a reasonable expectation of finding a worthy women to be his wife, and to bear <b>him</b> children.<br /><br />The sexual revolution has, however, loosed female sexuality, which had hither-to been checked by the need/desire of women to be able to find a husband (no rings for sluts is as old as history). <br /><br />The most obvious net result of loosed female sexuality is that there are simply not enough marriage-worthy women to go around for the number of men who would otherwise make good husbands. <br /><br />But, given your simplistic view of the world, I’m obviously wasting time trying to explain the plainly obvious to you. Your one of those guys who simply believes that whatever wrong with society, the fault lies solely with men (you only ever criticize men), and you might have actually started believing in your own inane theory. So, you can just get back to calling me a “fag” or whatever you need to do to feel better about yourself.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-8417581869863343582011-01-20T02:39:33.873+11:002011-01-20T02:39:33.873+11:00[1 of 2]
Josh F/Thordaddy - "Whereas Mr. Rich...[1 of 2]<br />Josh F/Thordaddy - <i>"Whereas Mr. Richardson sees "autonomy theory" in terms of self-creation, I see it in terms of a fundamental aversion to truth."</i><br /><br />As time an posts go by, you make less and less sense all the time. Being an autonomous individual is not, in any way, aversion to the truth (I doubt you could even offer up a half-way cogent argument as to how it supposedly is). <br /><br />Nor is autonomy “self-love”. There are those who do practice such self-love. The correct term is “narcissist”. But, many individuals who are living alone, both men and woman, are clearly not narcissists. Nor are they, by any definition (other than your private and deeply twisted one) “homosexual”. Your inane theory is a pathetic FAILURE. Did you ever wonder why no one has picked up on it? Hint- everyone else sees it for the juvenile effort to call those who disagree with you “fagots” that it is.<br /><br />Autonomy is simply developing ones self as an individual, not as some group-thinking cultist. To this end, men need to resume doing what they had routinely done in years gone by – establish themselves (career, trade, farm, etc.) so that they can live out their lives in relative self-sufficiency. It is only after a man has established his own independent autonomous self that he is even ready to consider marriage. By establishing himself, even if he didn’t marry, he would still be able to get by on his own.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-45586133357827473562011-01-19T13:47:06.030+11:002011-01-19T13:47:06.030+11:00slwerner,
Whereas Mr. Richardson sees "auton...slwerner,<br /><br />Whereas Mr. Richardson sees "autonomy theory" in terms of self-creation, I see it in terms of a fundamental aversion to truth. So we get things like abortion equals reproductive rights. We get homosexual male equals man. We get anti-man ideology equals "feminism." We call degenerate female behavior "female supremacy." We get male separatism based on a general aversion for woman as MAN's movement. The self-creation aspect is largely a tool of denial about what actually motivates those that seek an impossible absolute freedom in a strictly physical realm.<br /><br />What you don't seem to understand is that the homosexual is a PARTICULAR and original instance of radical autonomy within our reality. His radical autonomy is grounded in his sexual autonomy. In his world, Man and Woman are worthless creations. Both represent something impositional and oppressive. Both the homosexual and devout dyke UNDERSTAND that Man and Woman CAN'T exist radically autonomous AND STILL BE Man and Woman.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39311643304986912072011-01-19T11:45:30.319+11:002011-01-19T11:45:30.319+11:00MR - ”Why not have free love? How, after all, do y...MR - <i>”Why not have free love? How, after all, do you intellectually decide in favour of a quality like modesty? It's a difficult quality to define and some of the reasons for favouring it don't become obvious until after it's been abandoned. If it comes down to an individually self-determined intellectual choice, then the inherited "prejudice" in favour of modesty probably won't hold.”</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, I’m a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I’d like to revisit this later. But, basically, I see this being linked to men needing to withhold marriage from women, making them prove themselves worthy first, as a way of re-establishing control over female sexuality – the modern libertine version of which I see as the “root” of the socio-sexual chaos we now face.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-57675673951246723362011-01-19T11:40:13.870+11:002011-01-19T11:40:13.870+11:00[3 of 3]
The only thing which I believe even come...[3 of 3]<br /><br />The only thing which I believe even comes close to in it’s misapplication is Thordaddy’s twist on your view of autonomy (which, I take it you hold to be man’s separation from God, his fellow man, and from God’s design fro him?)<br /><br />I think where Thordaddy bungles this is that he doesn’t recognize that woman are not God, and that be separation from women is not analogous to being separated from God. By his mutation, the apostle Paul was a homosexual, as have been countless Catholic monks down through the ages.<br /><br />My impression is that he believes he has found a clever way to call those he disagrees with “fagots” by incorporating your theory into his world-view. <br /><br />Perhaps his misuse of your idea has caused me to have a more jaundice view of that theory in much the same way that the doctrinal misuse of Scriptural concepts by some avowed Conservative Christian churches has lead me to take a dim view of SoCons in general. Perhaps.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-27465068021636500392011-01-19T11:39:45.299+11:002011-01-19T11:39:45.299+11:00[2 of 3]
Perhaps my disconnect with your Autonony...[2 of 3]<br /><br />Perhaps my disconnect with your Autonony Theory is that I’m not clear as what you believe to be the alternative (on an individual basis). Are you suggesting that individuals are depended on other human beings for our choices in life. <br /><br />A particularly twisted variant of such thought that I’ve personally encountered is the idea that husbands, as (figure)heads of their households, are responsible for any and all misdeeds of their wives. I have found this line of thought particularly onerous in regards to female infidelity, wherein certain Christian churches hold that a husband is largely, if not mostly to blame for his wife’s infidelity. This takes the personal responsibility from the wife as an autonomous individual, capable of making her own choices, and puts it on her husband (and her lover) for what can more rationally be seen as HER act of free-will.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-82188353387840169492011-01-19T11:39:16.159+11:002011-01-19T11:39:16.159+11:00[1 of 3]
MR - ” What matters is what the politica...[1 of 3]<br /><br />MR - <i>” What matters is what the political class takes autonomy to mean. And their understanding is not that we have a God ordained free will by which we must bear the responsiblity for own moral decisions.”</i><br /><br />The opposite of “autonomy” is “dependency” (so sayeth Encarta), which might well fit with the Socialist view and their abhorrence of personal autonomy – wishing people to be entirely depended on government/ruling class.<br /><br />But, I think you may be over-conflating the idea that personal autonomy equates to a separation form God. I think the more accurate term for the latter would be <i>rebellion</i>.<br /><br />Autonomy may not always lead to desirable results, but it is God-given. Eve had the ability to consider “evidence” and chose her course of action. God gave her that ability. Obviously, she screwed-up and ruined it for all of us. But, still, her autonomy was God given.slwernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293327533235793560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-38560833517721829332011-01-19T10:13:17.636+11:002011-01-19T10:13:17.636+11:00slwerner,
Of course, you never explain how that l...slwerner,<br /><br /><i>Of course, you never explain how that last sentence can be carried out</i><br /><br />I don't think I've written a particular post setting out a complete "how to marry well" message. But it gets discussed at times at the site. We've discussed what factors tend to either increase or reduce the risks of divorce. We've discussed how to respond to women who push at limits early in a marriage. We've discussed what characteristics in women to look out for.<br /><br /><i>while the ranks of the Trads are shrinking</i><br /><br />No, over the past few years the readership of this site and other sites like VFR has grown appreciably.<br /><br />We've gone from nothing to a small something. I think too that in the US a section of the young right is shifting politically in our direction.<br /><br /><i>In your deliberate effort to alienate those in the MRM</i><br /><br />No, it's a deliberate effort to understand what is happening in the MRM. I take a keen interest in the movement, having been an active critic of feminism for over 15 years now. I'm delighted at the emergence of a significant MRM and I believe it's doing some good work in challenging aspects of feminism.<br /><br />But there are some clear political currents emerging, which aren't easily reconciled. If some MRAs believe that trads/socons are to blame just as much as feminists are, then you can't ask trads/socons to simply "hang together" with the movement.<br /><br />Our response will be to try to understand why such a line is being taken.<br /><br /><i>This IS NOT what most people believe “autonomy” to mean.</i><br /><br />What matters is what the political class takes autonomy to mean. And their understanding is not that we have a God ordained free will by which we must bear the responsiblity for own moral decisions.<br /><br />However, even the version of autonomy you set out is likely to end up in some kind of modernism.<br /><br />If what matters is making an intellectual rational choice to self-determine our own course of action, then privilege will be given to aspects of life which allow for this rational choice making.<br /><br />So a woman who chooses to renounce motherhood might think herself superior to those women who follow a more conventional, instinctive, "biologically determined" life path of having children.<br /><br />Furthermore, important aspects of life which were once accepted as a good, will be abandoned because people are no longer adept at providing "rational" reasons for them.<br /><br />Why not have free love? How, after all, do you intellectually decide in favour of a quality like modesty? It's a difficult quality to define and some of the reasons for favouring it don't become obvious until after it's been abandoned. If it comes down to an individually self-determined intellectual choice, then the inherited "prejudice" in favour of modesty probably won't hold.<br /><br />We find ourselves back in the 1790s, with the French revolutionaries deciding that things have to be started again from scratch (they restarted the calendar to begin from Year 0), and Edmund Burke arguing against them in favour of inherited "prejudice" and correctly predicting that the Revolution would end in terror. <br /><br />If we are merely self-determining rationally what is in our interests, then how can we ever give any due to qualities such as "duty" or "manhood" or "love of nation" or "integrity"?<br /><br />It will start to be conventional to be unconventional, to be "anti-bourgeois," as this makes people believe they are choosing for themselves rather than following convention.<br /><br />The West has been along this path already with unfortunate results.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-80204021883133186452011-01-19T09:43:50.449+11:002011-01-19T09:43:50.449+11:00Slwerner said,
"while the ranks of the Trads...Slwerner said,<br /><br />"while the ranks of the Trads are shrinking"<br /><br />Rubbish, they're currently growing because people have tried living in the candy shop and don't really like it. <br /><br />"any better than you do your claim about the MRM being largely “liberal”."<br /><br />Of course its liberal and you admit to that yourself in your final post. To be properly liberal is essentially not about thinking for yourself as an individual but in holding yourself out as the highest good. <br /><br />"In your deliberate effort to alienate those in the MRM"<br /><br />Don't you play the victim, you also have to be honest and say how much of your attention is spent on criticsing us. Its an easy argument to make because "everyone" likes to criticise conservatives. Talk about taking responsibility for your own life. Blaming conservatives, who hold themselves out to be responsible (even if they don't always serve society as well as they could/should) is like blaming your parents for everything. <br /><br />"but where is it that you have outlined your agenda for how the average man can possibly hope to make the best in the current situation?"<br /><br />The average man must take from the men's movement where it says you have to watch your back. We say that too. However, if he embraces "do whatever feels good" ultimately he won't be better off.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.com