tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post3417010814133718986..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Goldberg: feminism is a cure for the worldUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-75030711300479625602011-04-18T09:23:11.860+10:002011-04-18T09:23:11.860+10:00Yet another one for bonald, and I'm annoyed wi...Yet another one for bonald, and I'm annoyed with myself for forgetting it. <br /><br />It's been four years since Magill vs. Magill, in Australia. Do a search on Liam Magill, and tell me if you find anything wrong with what his lady-wife did.<br /><br />PS: As a bonus, consider if Justice Crennan is any model of behavior, either. But, of course, she <i>must not</i> be criticized for her actions, after all, we are not to say any harsh words to the "ladies", eh, bonold?Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-82711239104108298222011-04-15T11:03:48.148+10:002011-04-15T11:03:48.148+10:00Oh, and one more for bonald:
I mentioned a case w...Oh, and one more for bonald:<br /><br />I mentioned a case where an adult woman had sexual intercourse with a teenaged boy below the age of consent. She became pregnant, and now he is on the hook for 18 years of child support. <br /><br />I'm sure, as a trad-con, you find this completely just, because after all, men -- even young men under 18 -- must always be willing to support women no matter what. <br /><br />Even women who are criminals, who deliberately break the law. <br /><br />Just another example of your pedestalization of women...Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-1014911304786858582011-04-15T11:01:13.827+10:002011-04-15T11:01:13.827+10:00And just in case anyone bothers to read this secti...And just in case anyone bothers to read this section again, let me point this out: <br /><br />I wrote, in response to Elizabeth Smith:<br /><br /><i>Divorce reform? Custody reform? Mandatory paternity testing to prevent cuckolding? Reform of rape laws to reduce false accusations? Reform of sexual harassment laws to reduce false accusations? Reform or reduction of Affirmative Action to end active discrimination against men in college and jobs?</i><br /><br />Casual readers might have missed the fact that in her response, she <i>ignored</i> all of the above points. She just didn't bother to even mention them. Instead, I received yet another personal attack from a trad-con in lieu of an adult discussion. <br /><br />I submit this is typical. Trad-cons simply don't see any reason to actually engage the real issues, it seems to me. Trad-cons prefer mutual admiration societies and vanity press web sites, where they can tell each other how much better they are than everyone else...especially those <i>evil</i> men who actually want to change laws for the better. <br /><br />Again, rather like feminists, although to Mark Richardson's credit there are comments on this web site, a conspicuous difference between this site and femisting, jezebel, etc.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-8519787015276150102011-04-15T10:22:38.777+10:002011-04-15T10:22:38.777+10:00Oh, and one more comment just for bonald:
When a...Oh, and one more comment just for bonald: <br /><br />When are you going to answer the questions I asked of you on your own blog? When will you tell me why Andrea Yates is worthy of deference and respect? <br /><br />I've been waiting for an answer to that for months. You are disappointing me, and possibly a few others who read your vanity press website.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-25538003783701602802011-04-15T10:19:35.131+10:002011-04-15T10:19:35.131+10:00Elizabeth Smith
To "Anonymous Reader" Vi...Elizabeth Smith<br /><i>To "Anonymous Reader" Victorian understanding of women= Traditional conservative understanding of women.</i><br /><br />That is how I see it. I have pointed out examples on this very blog.<br /><br /><i> It's useless trying to talk to him that he's wrong.</i><br /><br />Certainly it is not useful to rail at me, or call me an animal as Wolfe did. You <i>could</i> try using logic, and reason...<br /><br /><i> He truly believes we worship women or something.</i><br /><br />You don't read very well, or very carefully, or both. It is clear to me that trad-cons place women upon pedestals of moral superiority, just as the Victorians did. I have pointed out this fact on the blog before. You may equate that with worship, but in doing so you aren't making sense.<br /><br /><i> Personally I can only deduce his thinking by the fact that we don't hate women and not so much that we love them.</i><br /><br />Personally, I don't see any evidence that you can define the word "deduce", let alone engage in it. You post emotionally, use logical fallacies, fail to read the comments you are responding to, and generally exhibit an immature lack of reasoning. I'm willing to make some allowances due to your age, but once again:<br /><br />a bit of humility on your part would go a long way. <br /><br />It's funny, I've known some real traditional people in my day, some of them were born in the 19th century. None of them were as rude to me as most trad-cons are. None of them engaged in name calling as a routine thing; they had their prejudices, but they had manners as well, even those that never went much beyond the 8th grade. <br /><br />To paraphrase: I've known real traditionalist men and women, and most trad-cons today are not at all like those people were. <br /><br />(But trad-cons do argue just like feminists very often. Gee, why is that?)Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14326944624521270892011-04-15T10:09:42.516+10:002011-04-15T10:09:42.516+10:00Wolfe:
Bark all you want about there being no sing...Wolfe:<br /><i>Bark all you want about there being no single men's movement.</i><br /><br />I am not a dog. But thanks once again for displaying the kind of "argument" that feminists typically display. You have provided yet another example of how similar you trad-cons are to the feminists you claim to oppose. <br /><br /><br /><i> It is true after all. What exists now are small bands of people working towards broadly similar but ultimately contradictory roles. But one day, all these groups will congeal into one great movement of opposition that is dominated by a single voice.\</i><br /><br />I doubt it. Because I understand men and women, and it appears you do not. Much more likely there will always be multiple groups working on multiple issues -- and trad-cons sitting on the sidelines, spitting on those actually trying to change things for the better, of course. <br /><br /><i> Feminism, after all, began the same way. But all these feminists who stood against abortion, contraception, and easy divorce </i><br /><br />Oh, really? Please do name these feminists. Cite their writings, to prove your claim. <br /><br /><i>were eventually overwhelmed by that dominant chorus which give us the monster that is tearing our civilization apart. The loudest voices I hear coming out of this loose conglomeration that claim to stand for "men's rights" (as asinine a term as "women's rights") lead me to believe that when this confederacy of righteous anger finally decides to become a movement, that dominating voice will be one that will prolong the agonies wrought by feminism long after the last feminist is hung by the entrails of the last divorce lawyer.</i><br /><br />I'm sure you hear all sorts of things. And your purple prose, were it not cribbed from far better writers than you, would almost be interesting. <br /><br />In any event, changes will be made. From custody of children after divorce, to attacking the many priviliges that women have (thanks in part to trad-cons), to reforming rape laws, changes will be made. They will be made mostly by men. <br /><br />I doubt that trad-cons will be involved. It would be beneath you to actually lift your hand to help a fellow man -- might interfere with writing another article about "patriarchy", or preening about your superiority due to your churchianity, or something else equally important to you. <br /><br />So since you refuse to get involved, you won't affect the outcome. That's reality, unlike the trad-con fantasies so popular on some sites...Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-60904993217011722562011-04-15T09:57:12.919+10:002011-04-15T09:57:12.919+10:00Jonathan Wolfe:
I guess one more thing that unifie...Jonathan Wolfe:<br /><i>I guess one more thing that unifies the so-called "collection of various men and a few women, working in various directions" is the juvenile capacity to hide behind a persecution complex.</i><br /><br />Oh, are you a psychiatrist, doing diagnoses over the Internet, now? Or are you just another smug trad-con talking down to someone in lieu of actually having an adult discussion? Well, let's just see. <br /><br /><i>The fact that there are some men who are righteously angry is not in and of itself impressive enough to warrant denunciation. What, you think you are the first people to be righteously angry about the evils of feminism? Been there, got the t-shirt.</i><br /><br />I wager that, like Zed, I have been at this longer than you have. <br /><br /><i> Heck, "angry traditionalist" has morphed into a favorite lefty stereotype. (As for "smug self-satisfaction", who in the internet isn't?) Why would we denounce men who are like us too?</i><br /><br />Trad-cons routinely denounce angry men who will not be pack mules for trad-con causes. The fact that men have issues you don't approve of, such as opposing cuckolding (although I'm sure bonald the pedestalizer will deny this ever happens) via mandatory paternity testing, revising rape laws to reduce the number of men imprisoned due to a woman's lies, and so forth is enough to bring your contempt and sneering out in full force.<br /><br />You trad-cons wring your hands over society, but you don't do squat, a handful like Richardson excepted. <br /><br /><i>No, what is being denounced here is not the fact that you are angry. The discontent, like the poor, we will always have with us. What is potentially troubling to me, as well as to many traditionalists, is what you do with all that righteous anger.</i><br /><br />Well, since all trad-cons seem to be good for is handwringing, screeching about how evil MRA's are, and yearning for a mythical monarchy, I guess that we'll all find out in good time...and trad-cons, due to a steady <i>refusal</i> to have adult conversations with angry men, won't affect the outcome.<br /><br />Maybe if you actually attempted to communicate, instead of sneer, with men's rights advocates you might get some where. As it is, the last couple of years has led me to the conclusion that traditionalist conservatives are not just useless, you are actually an impediment to justice. <br /><br /><br /><i> Such anger has the force to change the world, after all. And when you are willing to become the monster that we, as traditionalists, have collectively resisted far longer than you (even if quite ineffectively), we are justly concerned.</i><br /><br />Oh, well, now. If you are willing to admit that trad-cons were "resisting" longer than MRA's, then that means that you are tacitly admitting the following:<br /><br />* Trad-cons <i>gave up</i> when feminists demanded "no-fault" divorce.<br /><br />* Trad cons <i>gave up</i> when feminists demanded family court.<br /><br />* Trad-cons <i>gave up</i> when feminists demanded the Bradley amendment, creating debtor's prison for divorced fathers.<br /><br />* Trad-cons <i>gave up</i> when Senator Biden championed the Violence Against Womens' Act (VAWA), which federally funds "shelters" that further feminist ends, and which redefined "domestic violence" so broadly that any man who cohabits with a woman is one phone call away from jail. <br /><br />So you admit that you trad-cons just gave the feminists what they wanted. <b>Traditional conservatives, as I have stated before, are part of the problem</b>.<br /><br />And now, righteously angry men are supposed to follow your instructions without question? <br /><br />I don't think so. Because in the end, <b>you did not resist, you capitulated</b>.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-35117162224450227922011-04-15T09:38:13.571+10:002011-04-15T09:38:13.571+10:00bonald
Here's an example of how many, even in ...bonald<br /><i>Here's an example of how many, even in the men's rights movement, have bought into the evil contraceptive mentality of imagining that one has some kind of right to have sex without being responsible for the natural consequences of sex.</i><br /><br />Nice example of tradcon selective editing. Anyone who actually read what I wrote would see that I'm more than ready to agree that such intercourse can be deemed wrong.<br /><br />But what bonald won't admit, cannot admit, is that women in the current situation have every incentive to lie, and few incentives to be honest. Bonald doesn't appear to grasp the fact that every single woman in the US has the right - the unquestioned right - to an abortion, at any time prior to birth, and her husband (if any) has no say in that decision. None. <br /><br />Tradcons who sit around wishing for some mythical monarchy are not serious people. In my opinion.<br /><br />I wrote:<br /><i>"Since women are on average no more intelligent than men and are clearly not stronger than men, that leaves the moral realm. You can't have chivalry without regarding women as somehow being better than men, and the traditional way is to regard them as "more moral" than men."</i><br /><br /><i>Utter rubbish. Both men and women have a duty to protect children.</i><br /><br />Except when the women choose to murder them, of course. Then they have no duty at all. But they can count on trad-cons to come to their defense anyway. <br /><br /><i> Does that mean that we regard children as "better" than adults, morally or otherwise? Of course not. It's because we're strong and they're helpless. Similarly, chivalry isn't based on any kind of female superiority but on a kind of male superiority, namely superior physical strength and capacity to repel violence.</i><br /><br />Only in your imagination. The reality is, you trad-cons routinely pedestalize women. It's embedded in your politics and your ideology. It is my opinion that the trad-con pedestalization of women was the key to the enactment of VAWA in the US, as well as other feminist laws, because you tradcons cannot bring yourselves to publicly criticize, let alone chastise, women. <br /><br />You are more that willing to accept millions of dead babies every year from "the ladies", but unwilling to raise a single finger to stop yet another man from being sent to prison on false rape charges. <br /><br />You aren't even coherent enough to be hypocrites.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-44531921872078871912011-04-08T04:00:32.388+10:002011-04-08T04:00:32.388+10:00For those who are interested, Goldberg has respond...For those who are interested, Goldberg <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263497/right-feminism-jonah-goldberg" rel="nofollow">has responded</a> to critics of his article, albeit thoroughly inadequately.Davouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679094598013542866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-75145900940593290922011-04-06T01:46:03.186+10:002011-04-06T01:46:03.186+10:00"But do carry on. I understand that despising..."But do carry on. I understand that despising men who are righteously angry about serious injustice is important to you trad-cons."<br /><br />I guess one more thing that unifies the so-called "collection of various men and a few women, working in various directions" is the juvenile capacity to hide behind a persecution complex. <br /><br />The fact that there are some men who are righteously angry is not in and of itself impressive enough to warrant denunciation. What, you think you are the first people to be righteously angry about the evils of feminism? Been there, got the t-shirt. Heck, "angry traditionalist" has morphed into a favorite lefty stereotype. (As for "smug self-satisfaction", who in the internet isn't?) Why would we denounce men who are like us too?<br /><br />No, what is being denounced here is not the fact that you are angry. The discontent, like the poor, we will always have with us. What is potentially troubling to me, as well as to many traditionalists, is what you do with all that righteous anger. Such anger has the force to change the world, after all. And when you are willing to become the monster that we, as traditionalists, have collectively resisted far longer than you (even if quite ineffectively), we are justly concerned. <br /><br />Bark all you want about there being no single men's movement. It is true after all. What exists now are small bands of people working towards broadly similar but ultimately contradictory roles. But one day, all these groups will congeal into one great movement of opposition that is dominated by a single voice. Feminism, after all, began the same way. But all these feminists who stood against abortion, contraception, and easy divorce were eventually overwhelmed by that dominant chorus which give us the monster that is tearing our civilization apart. The loudest voices I hear coming out of this loose conglomeration that claim to stand for "men's rights" (as asinine a term as "women's rights") lead me to believe that when this confederacy of righteous anger finally decides to become a movement, that dominating voice will be one that will prolong the agonies wrought by feminism long after the last feminist is hung by the entrails of the last divorce lawyer.<br /><br />So yeah, keep telling yourself that we're denouncing you because of your righteous anger. Make the same mistake teenagers make about their parents. But, do know that the monster you seek to slay shares more with you than you think, and that the brashness by which you suggest we destroy everything to get to this monster will destroy you as well.Jonathan Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08958622460101172299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39166797665628382442011-04-05T21:45:13.197+10:002011-04-05T21:45:13.197+10:00bonald said...
Whether either of them wanted them ...bonald said...<br /><i>Whether either of them wanted them or not is irrelevant. If you don't want kids, don't have sex.</i><br /><br />Sexual intercourse is irrelevant as it does not even need to occur. It doesn't matter how a woman becomes pregnant. The male, boy or man, whose sperm is acquired by any means (including extraction of used condoms from rubbish bins) has no say in his own future. Even little boys raped by adult women are forced into parenthood and the parallel financial responsibilities.<br /><br />Any woman who chooses to become a parent should acquire the consent of the other parent to be. In cases of rape by a woman(25% of child sexual abuse and almost always boys are the victims) the victims should have the right to demand an abortion.gwallannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-88571739940506056652011-04-05T15:13:43.787+10:002011-04-05T15:13:43.787+10:00"I agree with you on a couple of points. The ..."I agree with you on a couple of points. The Victorians did take a false step in seeing women as the more morally virtuous sex. I wonder if they did so, in part, because in the Victorian era the balance in the understanding of relationships shifted decisively toward romance, and the male romantic instinct is to idealise women.<br /><br />I have to say, though, that the traditionalists I read do not believe in the idea of women being morally superior or as being the moral guardians of society."<br /><br />To "Anonymous Reader" Victorian understanding of women= Traditional conservative understanding of women. It's useless trying to talk to him that he's wrong. He truly believes we worship women or something. Personally I can only deduce his thinking by the fact that we don't hate women and not so much that we love them.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72353967757949194412011-04-05T08:32:06.199+10:002011-04-05T08:32:06.199+10:00Mark said,
"As for the issue of what traditi...Mark said,<br /><br />"As for the issue of what traditionalists have to offer 22-year-old men, we are too small a movement at the moment to offer much in the way of practical assistance.<br /><br />But politically we offer a great deal."<br /><br />I think we have to offer something more than what we are. Just the other day I was hearing about someone on campus who is the subject of the rumor mill where its said that he might have "raped" someone. Apparently, and I don't know all the facts and there are conflicting stories even as to whether it happened, it was at a drunkenish conference and the guy might have exposed himself to some girl, college kids do those kinds of things. Then this progressed in the telling from indecent exposure to a sexual assault and then to rape. This story was being used by people to stop his student political career.<br /><br />Whether we tell guys to stop with the raunch culture, (or at least to think twice about it, and that might perhaps go along with encouraging them to go to church which has a strong youth focus these days), or we publically stand by and defend guys such as in the above situation who may have acted inappropriately or foolishly but who nonetheless aren't rapists, we must offer immediate support and assistance to young men in today's world.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43043052884928883182011-04-05T08:08:40.243+10:002011-04-05T08:08:40.243+10:00Anonymous Reader,
I agree with you on a couple of...Anonymous Reader,<br /><br />I agree with you on a couple of points. The Victorians did take a false step in seeing women as the more morally virtuous sex. I wonder if they did so, in part, because in the Victorian era the balance in the understanding of relationships shifted decisively toward romance, and the male romantic instinct is to idealise women.<br /><br />I have to say, though, that the traditionalists I read do not believe in the idea of women being morally superior or as being the moral guardians of society. <br /><br />I agree with you too that traditionalists could pay more attention to discussions about men's issues. These issues will become critical over the next ten years or so and we should certainly contribute.<br /><br />As for the issue of what traditionalists have to offer 22-year-old men, we are too small a movement at the moment to offer much in the way of practical assistance.<br /><br />But politically I think we offer a great deal. Most men do still want to marry, to have a masculine role within a family, to experience fatherhood and to belong to an enduring tradition.<br /><br />Liberal modernism is attacking these aspects of a full life for men. Traditionalism is the effort to explain why this is taking place and to establish a counterweight in society. <br /><br />And our movement is growing. Lawrence Auster reported the other day that he now gets something like 2,000,000 hits a month. Just ten years ago we barely existed.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-24076245961110369082011-04-05T05:24:51.750+10:002011-04-05T05:24:51.750+10:00"A woman can lie, claiming she's using th...<i>"A woman can lie, claiming she's using the Pill or an IUD when she isn't -- no matter, if she gets pregnant, and decides not to abort or give up for adoption, then the father is on the hook for 18 years."</i><br /><br />Here's an example of how many, even in the men's rights movement, have bought into the evil contraceptive mentality of imagining that one has some kind of right to have sex without being responsible for the natural consequences of sex. Anonymous Reader cites this case as if it were an obvious injustice, and I don't mean to pick on him personally; he's probably right that most of his readers will agree with him. That's my point--this is madness. Of course a man is and should be responsible for his biological children, as should their mother. Whether either of them wanted them or not is irrelevant. If you don't want kids, don't have sex.<br /><br /><i>"Since women are on average no more intelligent than men and are clearly not stronger than men, that leaves the moral realm. You can't have chivalry without regarding women as somehow being better than men, and the traditional way is to regard them as "more moral" than men."</i><br /><br />Utter rubbish. Both men and women have a duty to protect children. Does that mean that we regard children as "better" than adults, morally or otherwise? Of course not. It's because we're strong and they're helpless. Similarly, chivalry isn't based on any kind of female superiority but on a kind of male superiority, namely superior physical strength and capacity to repel violence.bonaldhttp://bonald.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-58790402010441468492011-04-05T03:39:51.065+10:002011-04-05T03:39:51.065+10:00Jesse_7
Anonymous Reader,
The paternity laws as y...Jesse_7<br /><i>Anonymous Reader,</i><br /><br /><i>The paternity laws as you describe them are horribly biased and in need of desperately urgent overhaul. </i><br /><br />So far as I know, my description is accurate. Make you think twice about casual sex, as a man, eh? Of course, men whose wives cheat on them and get pregnant are rather out of luck under the current laws, unless they know to test for paternity right after birth. And that might just be an emotional challenge, for any father, to actually go through with. <br /><br />One small step would be to test all infants born in a hospital for paternity at the same time other tests are performed. If all newborns are tested, the information would not be so offending to the mother, yet cuckolded fathers would have needed information. But mandatory paternity testing is always fought against ferociously by feminists, and never, ever supported by any traditionalists. That leaves the evil "men's rights" types to carry on alone. It is an uphill fight.<br /><br />Ditto for any divorce reform. I can't find any trad-cons that openly support Fathers for Justice, for example. Do you begin to see why I am annoyed here sometimes?<br /><br />There are real, definable, steps that could be taken that would restore some measure of justice to men and their children. There are a handful of real, visible, groups trying to get some changes. And tradcons sit on the sidelines, alternately dreaming of some "patriarchal" future, maybe even a monarchy, and sneering at MRA's for their lack of morality. <br /><br />And Mark Richardson, this last sentence isn't directed at you. I'll take your word for what you say you've done, without quibble. Just want you to know that. Because you're pretty much unique among trad-cons in having actually tried to do something for men, so far as I can tell.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-3037323285446535402011-04-05T03:25:39.091+10:002011-04-05T03:25:39.091+10:00"but frankly you don't have anything to s...<i>"but frankly you don't have anything to sell to the 22 year old man in the US"</i><br /><br /><i>Perhaps we don't in the sense that there is no quick fix. We just have to fight the liberal ideology as much as we can by targeting academia, media and science, be the best we can in our lives and live for God and for future generations.</i><br /><br />In other words, men have a choice to be miserable, or miserable, for the good of what you say. Not much there to fight for, is there?<br /><br /><i> MRM and game philosophy isn't a good sell in my opinion. Some nice points but in general they offer little that is good.</i><br /><br />Do you have any idea how callous this looks? You are dismissing very serious injustices done every day to men in the US with a wave of your hand. <br /><br />Divorce reform? Custody reform? Mandatory paternity testing to prevent cuckolding? Reform of rape laws to reduce false accusations? Reform of sexual harassment laws to reduce false accusations? Reform or reduction of Affirmative Action to end active discrimination against men in college and jobs?<br /><br />You dismiss all of that, as "nice points, but in general they offer little that is good". The sheer arrogance, the sheer, blind, cruel, arrogance that you present is not unusual or new to me.<br /><br />I've seen it in feminists for years. <br /><br />Once again, you demonstrate that there is no real difference between feminist attitudes towards men and trad-con attitudes. Just different slogans. <br /><br />Slogans aside, it appears to me that you and Mary Daly would have gotten along fine, just fine.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-4826641266204025832011-04-05T03:15:03.302+10:002011-04-05T03:15:03.302+10:00Contrary to your message we don't believe wome...<i>Contrary to your message we don't believe women are holy beings and worship them. We just treat some with dignity and other women with scorn.</i><br /><br />Oh, yeah, I noticed the outpouring of scorn for Elizabeth Gilbert from you tradcons. Why, the web and the cable TV were just crackling with all the scorn you dumped on her for that despicable divorce porn, "Eat, Pray, Love". I can recall the headlines on newspapers from coast to coast, "Women Refuse To Buy Book, Say It Is 'Disgusting'". <br /><br />Give me a break. If there's one thing I do not see tradcons doing, it is scorning <i>any</i> woman, no matter what she does. I wager that neither you, nor Laura Woods, nor hardly any other trad con woman ever, <i>ever</i> speak face to face to any other woman the way you do to men online. <br /><br /><br /><i> Some women are liars and will steal money from their husbands ruining their lives. Obviously not all of them are saints. We are not putting women on a 'pedestal'.</i><br /><br />Again, you cannot have chivalry without pedestalizing women. It is not possible. <br /><br /><i>Keep on reading the evolution influenced worldview present in game and MRA's which says to you that women are nothing more than amoral animals.</i><br /><br />You can denounce "game" all you want. But the fact of the matter is, as even Mark Richardson admits, <i>game works</i> because it encapsulates the known psychology of women and men. You can believe in 6-day creationism if you wish, although it means you have to view your God as a capricious liar, but in the real world any model of human behavior that <i>works</i> clearly is based upon reality. <br /><br />And reality is where we all live, even if we don't like it.<br /><br /><i> When are those female robots or transexuals coming up which a couple of you write so fondly as being better than women?</i><br /><br />Please show me when and where I have ever written anything about female robots, fondly or otherwise? Here is a hint: you can't. Because I have not wasted my time on such a silly topic. But thanks for making it clear that you still can't grasp the fact that all men angry about the wrongs done to men are not the same. <br /><br />One more time: there's no centralized command telling MRA"s what to do, what to think, what to say. Got it?<br /><br /><i>We are not invested in female worship, we are just not invested in female hatred.</i><br /><br />That's not how I see it. There are men out there, at various sites, who clearly are angry at women, for their own reasons. I do not know if you can understand those reasons, really, partly due to your age. I'm not talking down to you, but really, you cannot have a clue what life is like for men older than you, or what some people have gone through. <br /><br />There is such a thing as righteous anger. You may not understand it, but it exists. It is not at all the same thing as prejudice, although I suppose it can look that way. <br /><br />Your denegration of the sufferings of men whom you have never met is not a good thing to do. Again, some more humility would be good to consider.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-31429133987750613202011-04-05T03:14:35.960+10:002011-04-05T03:14:35.960+10:00Last but not least traditional conservatives and r...<i>Last but not least traditional conservatives and reactionaries don't "invest moral authority on anybody with a pair of X chromosome".</i><br /><br />On the contrary, it is the trad-cons and reactionaries who are big proponents of chivalry. But chivalry requires a man to put women -- <i>all</i> women -- on a pedestal above them in some sense. Since women are on average no more intelligent than men and are clearly not stronger than men, that leaves the moral realm. You can't have chivalry without regarding women as somehow being better than men, and the traditional way is to regard them as "more moral" than men. And it shows up over and over again, in many ways, if you know what to look for. <br /><br /><i>Truly you MRA's and gamers are the male version of feminists. You think all women are dirty or filthy</i><br /><br />And here we go with a nice example of what I'm writing about. For the crime of refusing to worship women, you accuse me of thinking "all women are dirty or filthy". Well, based on a number of years of observation, I'll say this: women have the same capacity to be dirty, cruel, sadistic, mean and nasty as men do. You just do it in different ways. <br /><br />But see? You are angry at me, because I won't acknowledge you as my superior, or so it seems. That is just more evidence for my point; that trad-cons refuse to admit women are no better than men.<br /><br /><i> and that even conservative marriage outside of a liberal secular state is a fail.</i><br /><br />Eh? I doubt that would be legal. In any event, the men you are preaching to don't share your religion. So they aren't going to go along with your churchianty wedding. What do you offer them besides a choice of misery or vice?<br /><br /><i> You think of yourselves as fighting for "men's rights" and building society when in reality you are nothing but a force of destruction and are infected with the prevailing ideology.</i><br /><br />There's that trad-con contempt for men I've come to know so well. Right now, Elizabeth, there are men in prison for a crime they did not commit; false rape accusations are much more common than most people understand. Those men are particularly at risk for being raped -- really raped, anally, not "oh, dear, I was drunk, he must have raped me" -- and what do you tradcons do about that? Nothing. You don't care, do you?. Because to you, men aren't actually human beings, we're beasts of burden and sources of sperm.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-13461715139403907712011-04-05T03:06:10.679+10:002011-04-05T03:06:10.679+10:00"And Elizabeth Smith, will all due respect to...<i>"And Elizabeth Smith, will all due respect to you as a human being, I am not going to take advice from an 18 year old woman on how to live."</i><br /><br /><i>Okay.</i><br /><br /><i>"Not just because of your age, although that is a big part of it, but more because of your female arrogance."</i><br /><br /><i>Female arrogance?</i><br /><br />Yes. That is how I see it. <br /><br /><i>"You do not have any authority over me, no matter how hard you may try to pretend otherwise."</i><br /><br /><i>Who said anything about final authority? I'm only giving my opinion and some advice.</i><br /><br />No one on this thread said anything about "final authority" until you did. But your flat, diktat style of "men should do this. MRA's should do that" writing makes it strongly appear that you wish to order men to do your bidding. Not uncommon in modern women, including modern "traditionalist" women, to be sure. Totally unacceptable in any case.<br /><br /><i> God and other human entities are the ultimate authority, not me.</i><br /><br />Then may I gently suggest you attempt to write in a more humble style?<br /><br /><i>"That's another part of the Victorian nostalgia tradcons are carrying, the notion of investing moral authority in anyone with a pair of X chromosomes. It's a fail."</i><br /><br /><i>I would like to say to you MRA's (yes you guys are not a unified, coherent movement I know but) where on earth did you get these 'Victorian' classifications?</i><br /><br />I cannot speak for anyone else, but from observation, from reading what is and what is not said. It is routine for trad-cons to denounce pick up artists for their "ruination" of women, even though the PUA's are not stalking churches, Sunday schools or convents, they are working the club scene. You know, the places where women <i>voluntarily go to get sexed by an Alpha</i>. That's just one example. There are many others. The pedestalization of women, the lack of understanding of women's sexual nature, permeates trad-con thinking in my opinion.<br /><br /><i>Did you watch too many British Victorian movies or read too many fictional British Victorian novels? It seems you were spending too much time with some erronous source.</i><br /><br />In fact, I pointed out on <i>this</i> site an example of pedestalization not long ago. I pointed out an example of pedestalization at Dalrock's site last weekend.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-74262061890593638302011-04-05T02:19:59.627+10:002011-04-05T02:19:59.627+10:00Anonymous Reader,
The paternity laws as you descr...Anonymous Reader,<br /><br />The paternity laws as you describe them are horribly biased and in need of desperately urgent overhaul. <br /><br />Elizabeth,<br /><br />A couple of strong posts. On your point about competing at the national or local level unfortunately I can't give a very detailed answer right now but I will soon, I promise. I realise that this is the second time now I've not answered this debate.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-51985215463621653752011-04-05T02:02:38.682+10:002011-04-05T02:02:38.682+10:00"but frankly you don't have anything to s..."but frankly you don't have anything to sell to the 22 year old man in the US"<br /><br />Perhaps we don't in the sense that there is no quick fix. We just have to fight the liberal ideology as much as we can by targeting academia, media and science, be the best we can in our lives and live for God and for future generations. MRM and game philosophy isn't a good sell in my opinion. Some nice points but in general they offer little that is good.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65863326085946828662011-04-05T01:55:46.455+10:002011-04-05T01:55:46.455+10:00"And Elizabeth Smith, will all due respect to..."And Elizabeth Smith, will all due respect to you as a human being, I am not going to take advice from an 18 year old woman on how to live."<br /><br />Okay.<br /><br />"Not just because of your age, although that is a big part of it, but more because of your female arrogance."<br /><br />Female arrogance?<br /><br />"You do not have any authority over me, no matter how hard you may try to pretend otherwise."<br /><br />Who said anything about final authority? I'm only giving my opinion and some advice. God and other human entities are the ultimate authority, not me.<br /><br />"That's another part of the Victorian nostalgia tradcons are carrying, the notion of investing moral authority in anyone with a pair of X chromosomes. It's a fail."<br /><br />I would like to say to you MRA's (yes you guys are not a unified, coherent movement I know but) where on earth did you get these 'Victorian' classifications? <br /><br />Did you watch too many British Victorian movies or read too many fictional British Victorian novels? It seems you were spending too much time with some erronous source.<br /><br />Last but not least traditional conservatives and reactionaries don't "invest moral authority on anybody with a pair of X chromosome". <br /><br />Truly you MRA's and gamers are the male version of feminists. You think all women are dirty or filthy and that even conservative marriage outside of a liberal secular state is a fail. You think of yourselves as fighting for "men's rights" and building society when in reality you are nothing but a force of destruction and are infected with the prevailing ideology.<br /><br />Contrary to your message we don't believe women are holy beings and worship them. We just treat some with dignity and other women with scorn. Some women are liars and will steal money from their husbands ruining their lives. Obviously not all of them are saints. We are not putting women on a 'pedestal'.<br /><br />Keep on reading the evolution influenced worldview present in game and MRA's which says to you that women are nothing more than amoral animals. When are those female robots or transexuals coming up which a couple of you write so fondly as being better than women? <br /><br />We are not invested in female worship, we are just not invested in female hatred.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-28174352651653559102011-04-05T01:29:08.944+10:002011-04-05T01:29:08.944+10:00Me
I understand that despising men who are righteo...Me<br /><i>I understand that despising men who are righteously angry about serious injustice is important to you trad-cons.</i><br /><br /><i>I don't think you do understand. I've been plugging away at these issues for decades.</i><br /><br />Are you "Jonathan Wolfe"? Because that is the person I was replying to. Or so I thought...Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-9049059634924488712011-04-05T01:26:48.367+10:002011-04-05T01:26:48.367+10:00The men's movement wins if it returns society ...<i>The men's movement wins if it returns society to norms which gave the average man an excellent chance to marry, have children and be a loved and respected husband and father.</i><br /><br />Perhaps, but frankly you don't have anything to sell to the 22 year old man in the US, who grew up in a feminized school system, saw other boys drugged if they acted too "boyish", saw girls praised and boys denegrated, saw young women given all sorts of extra help and young men none, and now is competing in the job market with women who automatically have an Affirmative Action advantage over him -- but after hours those same women expect him to make all the first moves, and pay for all the dates. <br /><br />You're saying, "buck up, lad, in 20 years things could be better". Do you recall being 20-something? I do, and 40 looked a long time away. <br /><br />And once again, to both you and Elizabeth Smith, <b>there is no central, unified, men's rights movement. It doesn't exist, save in your imagination.</b> So the ongoing sniffing about how "those MRA's" are going to ruin everything are simply pointless. <br /><br />Once again, I can point to a fragmented group of men and some women -- from PUA's to devout Christians -- who agree on some things a lot, and disagree on other things quite a lot, as the grab bag of ideas that sorta kinda is the "men's rights movement". <br /><br />Anyone who actually understands the most basic aspects of female vs. male psychology would know why there will never be a unified "men's movement" like the feminist "women's movement", and the fact that trad-cons continue to moan that the men will be <i>just like the feminists</i> merely reflects trad-con ignorance of female psychology vs male psychology. <br /><br />I think that tradcons by and large want to go back and live in some version of Victorian England. Unhappily, that era -- with its flagrant pedestalization of women -- led to the current mess, by peddling the lies that women are more moral than men, and naturally monogamous. So if I am correct, trad-cons just want to repeat the same mistakes all over again. No, thanks. <br /><br />And Elizabeth Smith, will all due respect to you as a human being, I am not going to take advice from an 18 year old woman on how to live. Not just because of your age, although that is a big part of it, but more because of your female arrogance. You do not have any authority over me, no matter how hard you may try to pretend otherwise. That's another part of the Victorian nostalgia tradcons are carrying, the notion of investing moral authority in anyone with a pair of X chromosomes. It's a fail.Anonymous Readernoreply@blogger.com