I have been seeing more and more women coming into the manosphere lately. Some of them are very ready to learn, while others want to think they are ready, but aren’t quite there yet. I have some suggestions for women who wish to read and truly learn from reading the variety of sites they will encounter.
1. Read: A lot. Don’t comment. At least not yet. Take some time to read some of the major issues and then step back and think about what is being said. Actually think about the ideas that are being presented, not how they make you feel.
2. Step Back: You are going to read some things that are going to make you very uncomfortable and probably even angry. Do your best to ignore these emotions for the time being as they will hinder you from being able to process what is actually being said. Women are naturally solipsistic (Oxford definition: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.). Yes, I know that sounds harsh, but women naturally see the world through the prism of our own lives and it is more difficult for us to understand that which we have not experienced for ourselves. This makes things that we don’t think apply to us much more difficult to grasp. However, as I have learned over the past couple of years, more than you realize in your readings in these parts will apply to you than you will be comfortable with. Try to look at these things with an objective eye, not an emotional one. The emotions will naturally rise. Step back from them for a bit and listen.
3. Man Speak: Most of the sites you will read are written by men. You will do very well to realize immediately that men speak very differently (especially to each other) than women. What you read may sound harsh or angry. However, most of it is no such thing. It is simply direct and lacking in emotion. Cold facts. This is how men tend to learn best and these sites are directed at men. As a woman visiting them, do not think this is angry speech. Rather, look at it as how men dispense information to each other.
4. Don’t Take it Personally: Solipsism renders it difficult for women to realize that these sites are not talking about you, the woman reading it, personally. The writers don’t know you. It’s not about you, it’s about women and how men relate to women as a whole. Most of this will apply to you but you still must not take it personally or you will not be able to learn anything. Don’t automatically dismiss it, rather look at it and examine it.
5. Ask Questions: Things are going to throw you for a loop and they will be very hard to swallow. That does not make them wrong. Things will go against everything you have been taught (there are very few marriages these days that break apart because of abuse or because a man left his wife for a single woman. You will want to scream from the mountain tops, “What about these poor, poor abused women!!” I know I wanted to. The fact is, this is not very common, at all. What is common these days is men being ripped from their families and taken for half their income only to see their kids every other weekend if they are lucky. See some good statistic here.) When you are confused about what you read vs. what you have been taught, ask questions. Not leading question, but straightforward and direct questions. Do not allow your comments and questions to be at all defensive. You will feel defensive, but don’t allow that to ooze into your comments. Read them and then read them again. If you detect any hint at being defensive edit them carefully. You will find that most will readily and politely answer your questions. You are always going to get men who will be angry and rude. Many of them have good reason to feel angry so I suggest letting it go. There is very rarely any reason to respond to them in kind. I have even seem some women respond to these comments in a teasing manner and it works very well for them.
6. Listen: There are a lot of highly intelligent men in these parts who know what they are talking about and have done a lot more research than you realize. You are not going to agree with everything they say and I am not saying you should. However, you should listen. Then do your own research. If you are confident in your facts then present them directly but amicably. No one here is going to be right 100% of the time and you will find that people are eager for a discussion. However, they are not eager to be yelled at or derided. So discuss and discuss a lot. But never deride. It will only get you laughed out and you will not be taken seriously again.
7. Your are, in fact, a feminist: You may not consider yourself a feminist. A lot of us didn’t. That does not mean that we didn’t whole heartedly swallow a good deal of what they were selling without even realizing it. You are a feminist. But guess what? So was I. You will not be able to learn until you forget for a while what you think you know and start to truly listen to what is being said in these sites (if you wish to read more about how you are, indeed, a feminist start here).
I realize there is a lot more to be said about this that I missed. Please discuss it in the comments as I think women (and maybe even some men) could benefit a lot from this. So could I.
UPDATE: If you have any questions, please ask.
**Addendum: If the comment thread does not seem to make sense, I was requested to remove some comments (and I turned off the embedded comments after I wrote this post). I will leave the replies in the thread as I think they are valuable to other readers and will stand just fine on their own. Sorry for the confusion.
Good advice. This is pretty much what I did.
King A (Matthew King) said:
Very perceptive, pioneeress.
As for #7, I’d recommend watching the devolution of Susan Walsh as a cautionary tale on the dangers of not inoculating oneself in the manner of #1-#6. If you truly don’t understand and believe in the irreducible differences between men and women, a girl bloggess will necessarily turn into a grrl blogger under the temptations of mainstream, cryptofeminist adulation. Feminism is the default status, constantly pulling people there as if by gravity. Countercultural consistency requires a conviction often underestimated by dabblers. Reconciling one’s heresy to the official line is just a blog post away.
On the other hand, The Lord occasionally treats us to hotties like this girl. God didn’t bless her with astonishing physical attractiveness, but her newly found grace has transformed her from a 4.5-5.0 into a Solid Seven:
She further puts the lie to Roissy’s preposterous 97% of attraction for men is physical. The “[arousal] test” (I force myself to be demure, as this is a lady’s blog) is not immune to inner hotness.
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Angels and saints rejoice as one.
Leap of a Beta said:
Curious, any sites you’d recommend as a place for women to start? In the past is sent a few to HUS, but that’s changed. I know the few that made it to dalrocks quickly found it depressing and stopped reading it. Seems to be an issue – if it doesn’t make you feel good, avoid it
Very good post, and second on the comment above, Walsh is definitely a big cautionary tale.
This is perhaps the biggest practical observation as it relates to Biblical marriage out there. While the tyrant husband exists which blows the standards of submission way beyond normative goals, he is very rare in the grand scheme of things. The more common husband is the one who allows his wife to tread over him. Scripture is clear in this, too. While it’s hard to find an example of a tyrant husband at all (maybe Nabal in 1 Samuel 25 is closest?), it’s incredibly easy to find examples of uxorious husbands all over Scripture, along with the destruction that it causes.
Great post! and sell all these new girls to my blog, please 😉
*send, not sell.
Re-read #2 and #4, and to a lesser extent #3, #6, and #7 and think on those very hard. No one is assuming anything about you. All people are doing is reading what you are writing and basing their opinions of you off of that. Nothing more. No generalizations (that’s “all women are”, “all men are”), no stereotyping. You’ve presented yourself for who you are (introducing yourself by throwing the verbal equivalent of an incendiary bomb into the proceedings isn’t a good start) and people are making judgment calls off of that and that alone. You’ve also presented your blog and it’s natural that people will go over and read as well and form opinions.
Because people dared have an opinion about you and express it? You’ve been given the advice in several places to “listen”. To answer part of your question about how to love men, that is key. Part of loving is realizing your own faults and addressing them. While a post may not mean “all women” when they say women, they do mean “generally most women”. Don’t set yourself up as arrogant and prideful (a legit opinion, btw, given your reactions), but listen and self-introspect. Test what you read against yourself in a faithful and honest way. And if you are incorrect, correct yourself. To further answer your question, men like to be treated fairly and equitably. Especially with a Christian man, he’s going to be looking at Scripture for his standard and will expect you to do the same. To that end, you need to be willing to own up to your faults as much as most good men are willing to own up to theirs in the long run. This will be a good start on the road to the answers you claim to seek.
Leap of a Beta said:
A large part of what you’ll see in generalizations of men and women is found in the differences in how each sex generatesthose generalizations of the other.
Most women base their generalizations based on a combination of mainstream media messages, what they want the world to be, their own experiences, and projecting the desires and behaviors of women onto how men ‘obviously’ must work. Because there’s no differences in the sexes as per feminism, right?
Men crate our generalizations based on reason, statistics, research, our own experiences (though we tend to acknowledge outliers exist, we just don’t care when generalizing), and a desire to take and control things to make them better. If we project, we often do so in our communication methods and assumptions that women will react to cold logic and reason like men do.
But. Welcome to the Manosphere. I hope you enjoy your stay
In fact, women’s generalization and stereotyping of men appears to play a huge part in the manosphere frustration, and yet, I read generalization and stereotyping of women all over the pages here. I was stereotyped before I even hit post. For my part, I believe that’s wrong on all sides.
No, it’s not the generalization and stereotyping of men that plays a huge part in the manosphere’s frustration, it’s that the stereotypes that are portrayed are flat out wrong.
Another pill you are going to have to swallow is that stereotypes and generalizations come about because they are typically true. There is a term you will become familiar with if you choose to stick around: snowflake. Snowflakes are unique. Just like every other unique and special snowflake out there. In short, we are mostly the same. Stereotypes come about from observations people make about others. Everyone falls into some general categories and they are usually quite accurate.
I don’t say this to be rude, but so you can understand: You proved a stereotype about women in general in the way you commented at Dalrock’s for the past two days. You came in like 99% of other women and literally used the same talking points all of us who have been in these parts have seen time and time again. Almost word for word, Melissa. You were a bit different because you displayed a slight undercurrent of wanting to genuinly understand. Many women won’t show that. The stereotype of women is there because it is the way women have presented themselves time and again.
Another harsh lesson: it is not up to us, the bloggers and commenters of the manosphere to not typecast you into a role. The onus in on you to prove yourself different. This is the truth of it no matter how much it bothers you and no matter how much it might hurt. The responsibility will always lie with you and never with the society you wish to become a part of.
While a post may not mean “all women” when they say women, they do mean “generally most women”.
This is very important for women to understand. Bloggers are going to write “men” and “women” and we can never be talking about *all* women. It should always be assumed we are talking about *most*. No blogger should have to write NAWALT (Melissa, that means Not All Women Are Like That) on every single post. It’s tedious and unnecessary. If a post doesn’t apply to you, then it doesn’t apply. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t apply to most people in the group being discussed. It may make one uncomfortable, but uncomfortable does not mean it’s wrong.
L.G. Robins said:
Similar to #7….accept that “you are like that” and don’t fight it. Swallow your special snowflake pride. Accept that you have the capacity to sin and are a flawed being. The only thing that keeps women from not being “like that” is heavily endorsed societal moral restraints and shaming, such as calling a “slut”, a “slut”. Strip all the moral restraints (like you have today) and we find women “are like that”, letting their sin all hang out and proud of it. Being “like that” is a default position for a modern woman, in a modern world, that has done away with propriety. Once you admit you are “like that”, you clear the way for learning.
The One Reason said:
Golden post. Number 2 due to number 3. And even then, count to ten. Waxing lyrical here.
Perhaps the two core “warring” inter-gender characteristics, self-centeredness vs. straight-talking/acting/thinking, condensed.
Wow Stingray, you banned XXXXXX! and she asked for it!
What’s with you girls and the banning habit.
[S: Sorry, Yohami. I don’t know what’s going on, but I don’t feel right leaving in names after the request.]
Ha! No banhammer in these parts. Requests, however, will be granted. 😉
Right now, I don’t have any recommendations. I need to do some more research. I have read some of Emma the Emo’s stuff and she is very fair to men and women. I have also heard of the “Thinking House Wife”, but I don’t know anything about it. The problem is, that if it makes you feel good, what they are selling is probably not the truth. Women have been stuck in Neverland (me as well) and I don’t think there is any easing out. I try to be as gentle as I can here, but I can only go so far before I would cross the line into lies. That I will not do. What Matt King said above about feminism pulling in, especially women, as if by gravity is scarily true. There are lines that cannot be crossed or the message will be lost.
Feminism is the default status, constantly pulling people there as if by gravity. Countercultural consistency requires a conviction often underestimated by dabblers. Reconciling one’s heresy to the official line is just a blog post away.
This is very true and one of the reasons I was very hesitant about starting this blog. Feminism has many traps and I am no more immune than any one else. That is why I ask for brutal honesty. It keeps one focused.
Thank you for this. Linking to this post and comments when new female commenters show up will (maybe?) be a huge time saver and hopefully reduce the rehashing of all the same old arguments.
Leap of a Beta said:
No. That I get out only being able to go so far into ‘nice and gentle’ before it gets into lies. I guess I’m simply frustrated that because it hurts, it then makes them feel helpless, and if they’re helpless it must be because it’s just ‘who they are’ and if it’s just who they are then why bother reading something that makes you feel bad about it? I know all three I’ve introduced to the ‘Sphere had that same chain of thoughts.
How about sending women to Dannys and to Spacetraveller. Danny should charm them and Spacetraveller is good at taking manopshere stuff and explaining how they can be understood in a way that don`t make them sound so angry or offensive. Maybe you can also focus on writing a series of posts that goes through basic manosphere opinions and explain them in ways that sound less offensive to women than they normally will when presented on other blogs. You just did some good work on talking about generalizations and snowflakes here in this thread. Another idea would be to have a bunch of links to specific posts that have a fair chance at getting the message across to women instead of just linking to certain blogs without directing to certain posts. Girlwriteswhat, genderratic and feminist critics write very sensibly and in a way that does not sound so angry. Linking to certain good posts by them could be a way to go for some MRA related stuff. Hugh Ristic also have good explanations of game. I think Yohami is good at writing in a way that is very insightful and does not sound needlessly angry. Maybe you can take it upon yourself to write some posts introducing basic concepts Yohami.
A good idea about Danny, but I am not familiar with Spacetraveller’s stuff. I will take your word for it, though.
Maybe you can also focus on writing a series of posts that goes through basic manosphere opinions and explain them in ways that sound less offensive to women than they normally will when presented on other blogs.
This is a very good idea (and providing those link as well). Though, I am not sure I have enough time to do something like this (going through all the material, I mean) right away. I could do a bit at a time. I think Yohami would also do a very good job with something like this if it is something he is interested in.
Emma the Emo said:
Very good list 🙂 I think I inadvertently used it, except for number 7 (I identified as feminist somewhat because I thought feminist meant “for equal rights”. Then I found out I wasn’t a feminist after all.. Although I let some untruths passively seep into my mind for sure.)
My experience have shown me that when faced with an attack, just calmly explain why they are wrong (if you have arguments), and try to see if there is any truth in their criticism. But yeah, sometimes there is no content in their comment, then you just leave it alone.
I think the most important thing is to think more and react less 🙂
Thank you for writing this guide. I think it is an excellent way of preparing women for the manosphere. I would even go one step further: I believe it would be rather appropriate for initiated women such as you to start “translating” the most important articles of the manosphere (as in those that are arguably to most valuable – would perhaps be decided upon by debate / vote?).
There is both a male and a female language, of sorts. And in the highly charged and polarized environment of the present it might be more effective if the manosphere’s messages could be conveyed in a gentler tone more tailored to a female audience. I believe “clearing nodes” such as your blog would be outstanding instruments for this task.
One thing I think can be helpful is to make women feel innocent. Add in stuff like it is not really your fault because you have been told and it is naturally that you have believed etc. Just make sure they don`t feel they will be kicked out of the tribe for having behaved a certain way or believed certain things.
You are the second person to recommend a sort of translating. I think it is a good idea as well. I’ll present it in a post to get some ideas. Thank you.
Leap of a Beta said:
Yes, but would a ‘it’s not tour fault’ message get translated into a ‘you don’t need to do anything because it’s not your fault’ by hamsters? I get that it’s not their fault they were deceived, but they’re still responsible for their actions. If they don’t realize and acknowledge that, will they have a motivation for change?
To be clear, I don’t have the answers to any of that. I get putting the delivery in as gentle a form as possible for easy digestion. I just don’t know if letting them off the hook would work. I know I had to own up to my beta gaits in order to changed them, I’m unsure if women are wired in a way that would allow them to change if given a clear avenue for their hamster to escape.
Leap of a Beta said:
Gaits = faults. iPhone fail.
Freudian slip? 😀
hahaha. So you’re banning the use of names too? someone should do a study of the relationship between progesterone and totalitarism
It’s gotta be a statism thing. 😉
Excellent point. Not only does one “clear the way for learning”, but one also clears the way to change. Knowing and owning ones capacity for sin makes the fight against it much more overt and in some ways, easier.
Pingback: Translations « On the Rock
King A (Matthew King) said:
There simply are no sites to recommend, Leap of a Beta. There are a few fragments and flakes and false-starts and frauds.
That’s why Stingray’s establishment of this site is such good news. She is at least attempting to attend to an underserved demographic, and so far she’s off to a great start, even better than I thought it would be from a blogging rookie — you don’t hear about all the sites that withered quickly by underestimating the grind.
I hope Stingray attracts sisters to gang-blog with her, to share the burden and keep the momentum. If you’re not a zealot or an obsessed nerd, it’s hard to solo and keep up the pace that sustains the best sites. While there haven’t been reliable female bloggers in this realm until Stingray, there are plenty of girls who demonstrate potential in their commentary to make for an interesting exchange.
Alpha Game, for example, was a great idea abysmally executed: gather up a couple diverse voices with posting privileges and see what happens. There was no chemistry, and it seems the multiple writers there regard it as a casual, part-time outlet. So they produce updates of stale reposts and baffling dork wisdom that inspires suckophancy. Vox Dei is a terrible den mother who hasn’t yet discovered the utility of humility. He inspires mediocrity and lethargy. Susan Walsh used to write there too.
Anyway, it’s something to keep in mind once Stingray feels she has gotten her sea legs as a managing editrix. Women who know how to be women are a force. They are a secret weapon nobody is quite prepared for. They will have an outsized impact on the culture.
King A (Matthew King) said:
I checked out your blog. Looks good. Fight the good fight.
King A (Matthew King) said:
… although, I don’t quite follow what you mean by “Churchianity.” Sounds suspiciously tidy and postmodern. Fr. Barron has the cure for what ails you.
“No, it’s not the generalization and stereotyping of men that plays a huge part in the manosphere’s frustration, it’s that the stereotypes that are portrayed are flat out wrong.”
This is such an important point. We even generalize ourselves constantly as in men are this or that or men need or want this or that. We just want to change the view to what we see as accurate.
Leap of a Beta said:
Yeah. It’s really hard. I love girl writes what, but she seems to have a very masculine form of communication based entirely on reasoning, logic, and facts without any emotional content (atleast not to her videos, haven’t had time to go through her writings). So I don’t know if she’d be good for pointing women to.
Hopefully Stingray will fill that role.
Eesh! No pressure. 😉
I’ve seen the video and it offers nothing to answer the basic root concern of the video he’s talking about (which I’ve seen, too).
Churchianity is as the term implies (and I’m not the only one that uses it). It’s the replacement of Christ with “church”, more specifically man’s attempt to supercede Christ’s perfect Church/temple with their own invention. The OT parallel is God’s established temple in Jersualem compared with the bull gods of the north country that Jeroboam created. Both intended to worship the same Lord God, but the places of Samaria were found to be an abomination in His sight, mainly for the attempt to replace His appointed place of worship with alternative idolatrous places.
King A (Matthew King) said:
Seriously. There is no pressure. We aren’t depending on your emergence as a unique and paradigm-shifting force. We’re just encouraging your wisdom to come out when it’s there.
If the project takes, it takes, and the introvert becomes a pseudonymous mini-celebrity. If it doesn’t, who cares? What was lost in the attempt?
One reason why men bloviate more forcefully than women: they can more easily say “fuck it” and not look back if it fails. We wear our failures well. It’s a learned trait of the sex that risks the proposal, that exposes itself to the possibility of getting shot down by the girl.
King A (Matthew King) said:
As Barron explains, in gentle terms so as to avoid spooking the sensitive gullible: there is no salvation outside of the church.
I don’t know who came up with the term “Churchianity,” but it is not a smart term. It implies the possibility of the separation of Christ from his bride and mystical body.
“[T]he basic root concern of the video he’s talking about” is almost too stupid to dignify with his comprehensive response, but it is a hardy perennial among the theologically ignorant and corrupt. Barron’s video “offers nothing to answer” it? The man answered it half a dozen different ways, grounding each of his corrections in rock-solid scriptural, magisterial, and traditional sources of wisdom.
No, “Churchianity” sounds like a term devised by someone who has never encountered “Christ’s perfect Church” as mediated through human imperfection. Belloc: the church is “an institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God it would not last a fortnight.” To fixate on the inevitable imbecility of her keepers rather than her enduring presence (“… the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”) is to falsely separate Christ from his church, or to drive a wedge between the truth and its imperfect keepers, which includes you. There is no such thing as encountering Christ apart from his church, warts and all. Whatever you want to call your protestantism, it is essentially a self-defining solipsism that arrogates to the individual the power to decide what does and doesn’t belong to “perfect[ion].”
Where are your examples of Churchianity apart from Christianity? It doesn’t suffice to call upon her corruptions and say they define the sinner’s creed. You chained the belittling “-ianity” suffix the Bride of Christ to blaspheme her, and you think the Bridegroom smiles on your cleverness.
David Collard said:
I find at Dalrock that I keep wanting to say: the problem is that American Protestantism allows feminist Evangelicals and the like to come up with ever more creative ways to re-interpret scripture in a feminist direction.
Isn’t this where the term Churchianity comes from? It’s meant to be derogatory to the feminist views in the protestant church, right?
David Collard said:
Yes, but I also see Matthew’s point, that the Church, for all her faults, is still the Bride of Christ. Terms like Churchianity can become too dismissive and will be used by non-Christians in a polemic against Christianity.
I feel constrained as a Catholic, but at Dalrock I keep thinking, and sometimes saying; don’t have absurdities like female pastors, and a lot of your problems will go away.
Would someone kindly explain the “downfall” of Susan Walsh to me ? And yes, this is not sarcasm, but a genuine question, because I’m not on that site very often.
Susan started out not understanding much about men as they are discussed in the manoshere. Same with women and our natures . As the regular men started to explain things to her, she was very receptive. From there she started to learn things she did not like and did not agree with and started to ban or delete comments from several of the men who tried to discuss these issues. This post goes into further details as do the comments. I don’t know all the details as I was only an occasional reader there. Rollo’s past posts talk about it some as well.
Also, I am not ignoring your questions at Rollo’s. I’ve been too busy to answer it yet. I do apologize.
My thanks to you.
This blog will do well. You’ve managed to attract some top commenters here. And where there is good commenters, there is a good blog.
Thank you, Marellus. I appreciate your comment.
I think I am going to answer the question you posed in a post as it will be challenging to explain. I am not sure when I will get it posted, but keep your eye out. I’ll let you know at The Rational Male, as well.
Leap of a Beta said:
The whole Susan thing is complicated, as Stingray says and Yohami posts about really well. And that was just one instance of it. I was banned twice from her blog. Neither was for anything I said on her actual blog, but for relating my experiences interacting with her on other blogs in very honest, forthright, and open ways.I said exactly the same things there, only in more blunt, less ‘kiddie gloves’ (IE More masculine as I was speaking to a masculine audience) ways. The first time I was able to explain my way back in, the second time I was ignored and am continued to be banned as I’m obviously a two faced misogynist that hates women. How dare I have opinions and see a reality different than a middle aged upper class white woman living in Boston.
I just found this place. Brilliant stuff. Love it.
I’ll visit regularly.
As for girl blogs: I recommend starting with grerp’s archives. She’s no longer posting regularly but her archives are nothing short of stellar. grerp.blogspot.com
Laura Grace Robins is good. fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com
I am really happy that you found it and even happier that you like it.
Thank you for the other recommendations. I loved Laura Grace Robbin’s piece about the Dog Whisperer. It was brilliant. Though I confess, I haven’t read more of her blog. I will now. Same with grerp. I found her right when she stopped blogging. I should take the time to read her archives as I have heard many good things about her.
For those who are interested, here are the links:
A poster whom I respect highly named MikeC explained very well at Rollo’s site HookingUp Smart’s evolution. It appears to have three phases, and its current incarnation is in its third phase. I’m borrowlng heavily from MikeC’s explanation here.
Phase 1 was from its founding to about mid to late 2010. Susan posted from a purely feminine centric view point and didn’t really understand Game or the male view.
Phase 2 was from late 2010 to, depending on whom you talk to, either October 2011 (the Kate Bolick “All the Single Ladies” post) or Christmas 2011 (Dalrock’s “Is Frivolous Divorce Overstated in the Manosphere?” post. This latter event has become known at HUS as “Dalrockgate”.
During this approximate one year period, HUS hosted very lively, candid and enlightening discussions on sex, relationships, and Game. Susan rapidly accepted and integrated into HUS much of Game’s precepts on human nature, intergender relationships, and sexual behavior. She encouraged frank and explicit discussions on all of it. It was no holds barred. Some of the most respected, intelligent and insightful manosphere voices commented there. Men and women were talking to each other about the most intimate aspects of their lives, and people were learning from each other.
The women invited men into the discussion space. But they weren’t prepared for the brutal bluntness and candor of some of the male participants. Just as they had been encouraged to do, men were telling the God’s honest truth about the facts on the ground in the SMP and how they felt about it. Male unhappiness and frustration was on full display. Men also had no compunction about calling out women in general on their behavior in the SMP.
In my opinion, Susan and her female commenters were taken aback at just how much male pain and frustration with sex and relationships there is. When there is that much male frustration, any outlet for it tends to become a pressure cooker. Susan and other commenters let their emotions get the best of them, and around Christmas 2011 it all culminated in Dalrockgate, in my view. Moreover, her advocation of Kate Bolick’s piece in The Atlantic a few short weeks before was too much for many to bear.
Susan was trying to keep a lid on it by softening her stance on Game. Some sensed an insistence from Susan and the female commenters that men should learn Game not for themselves, but because it increases their attractiveness to women. Thus was born the criticism of HUS that women advocate Game 2.0 — an incarnation of Game which serves women, seeks female approval, and exists to create more attractive hookups, boyfriends and husbands.
The end of Phase 2 and the beginning of Phase 3 occurred in early 2012 in the aftermath and fallout of Dalrockgate, with the banning of many of the most regular male commenters and the departure of some others. Now, Susan more tightly censors and controls the debate.
In Phase 3, Game and its precepts are rarely discussed, except for perhaps the occasional exposition of the attractiveness of “alpha” traits and the unattractiveness of “beta” traits. HUS no longer advocates much of Game, except where Game expressly advantages women. Susan is repackaging HUS as directed to an audience primarily of young women, the 18-30 demographic, some married, most single. She describes the more frank and candid male expositions on sex and relationships as “bad for business”.
Here’s MikeC’s comment at Rollo’s site. It is excellent and you should read it.
Well at least you didn’t get banned from a Christian Group on FB for explaining cunnilingus to a bunch of Born-Again women … yep … that was the beer talking again … but at least I got to insult a feminist theology student too …
Thank you for such an emphatic and informative comment. I mean it.
Pingback: Generalities « On the Rock
Awesome post Stingray. Just pure awesome.Thank you. It made my day.
People on the whole have an ego-centric view of the world.
Organized religion has rarely followed the precepts of its holy books.
Fixed it for you.
Not sure how I missed your blog for so long, going right to my recommended reading. As I’m trying to feed my wife the red pill (she’s got a lot of the knowledge already and is supportive of my own blog on personal red-pill family stuff) this post is great advice. Thanks, I’ll be checking in regularly!
Average Married Dad,
I’m happy that you found your way here. I hope you and your wife like what you see!
Shit, how did I miss this?! May I repost as its own page on my blog?
Cpt. Capitalism said:
I award you this award
Cpt. Capitalism said:
You are also now officially in the Manosphere Directory
Spoos in August said:
Good advice, and not just for women. Guys who are off-put by the ‘sphere could also take this to heart.
Thank you and if I just left a dozen of the same comment at your blog, the verification step messed me up. I thought it was rejecting them as I can never read those things!
Spoos in August,
Just found your post and wanted to say that I think you are absolutely spot on in your advice. Female readers do need to bear in mind that men NEED the ‘manosphere’ as an emotional outlet. Traditionally, it is easier for women, in general, to talk with each other about these things but for men this is much more difficult, especially if they are not in a supportive relationship. In Britian there is a concern over whats called the “buffer generation” (men born in the 60’s and 70’s. They are at a higher risk of suicide than ever before) and are between strong and silent fathers and progressive sons and as a result “struggling to cope” with changes in society. There is a sense of shame and defeat in not having a job or providing for the family, a reluctance to talk about emotions and a greater tendency to turn to drink and drugs. We need to acknowledge that men are different to women. Hopefully the ‘manosphere’ helps to rationalise and help some men come to terms with difficult issues, especially those surrounding women. If female readers find men’s tendencies for straight talking offensive then quite simply….don’t read. But as a female reader, i find it refeshing when, of course, not taken personally. Thank you for this post.
Welcome and I am very glad that you liked it.
Pingback: LIGFY – November Savings Time | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Pingback: Stingray Kills it « dannyfrom504
About the comment above about translations.. I’m actually working on something like that right now.. any suggestions or references to use is welcome.
I’ve started doing some of the translations but have gotten caught up in other posts. I intend to get back to it at some point. I am not sure what kind of references you are looking for. Can you be more specific?
Here are a few that I have worked on:
Sweet. I will use them thanks.
As for references.. might be easier to give you the basic structure of the … article? Write-up? Crash course?
_21st Century Man
_A guide to understanding male-female identities, roles, and relationships
_Analysis of the socio-biological evolution of the modern man, the post-feminist woman, and the commercialization of intrinsic values. (working title)
-Early Man and his ancestors
-Emergence of fatherhood
-Emergence of obtainable luxury
*Post war radical thought
*Media & propaganda
*21st Century Man (MGTOW / MRA)
This is a rough table of contents, I’m currently working on the evolution of man section, got quite a few references there already… The last 10 years will be the easiest to find.. anyway, I think you see what I’m getting at, so if there is anything you think I should add or make mention of… let me know.
Obmom, I would like to help but I am not exactly ‘smart’ on these issues but they fascinate me! But here goes! Feminists and scholars have divided the movement’s history into three “waves”. The first wave refers mainly to women’s suffrage movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (mainly concerned with women’s right to vote). The second wave refers to the ideas and actions associated with the women’s liberation movement beginning in the 1960s (which campaigned for legal and social rights for women). The third wave refers to a continuation of, and a reaction to the perceived failures of, second-wave feminism, beginning in the 1990s. Third-wave feminists often focus on “micro-politics” and challenge the second wave’s paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for females, contains internal debates between difference feminists such as the psychologist Carol Gilligan (who believes that there are important differences between the sexes) and those feminists who believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes and contend that gender roles are due to social conditioning. Post-feminism gives the impression that feminists can now focus on something else entirely. McRobbie believes that post-feminism is most clearly seen on so-called feminist media products, such as Bridget Jones’s Diary, Sex and the City, and Ally McBeal. Female characters like Bridget Jones and Carrie Bradshaw claim to be liberated and clearly enjoy their sexuality, but what they are constantly searching for is the one man who will make everything worthwhile! Britain now has some of the toughest anti – discrimination laws in the world but I my opinion blind to some of the most flagrant discrimination against men. From the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal . Men work longer hours, die earlier, but retire later than women . Men are blamed by society for the banking crisis, discriminated against by parental leave rules which favour women who want time off and ignored by the Courts when relationships break down and they seek custody of their children.
Meanwhile , young boys are educationally disadvantaged compared to girls. 20 percent more girls go on to university than boys. Is this because girls are more intelligent than boys? No they are being kept back by the system. They need male teachers as role models, in a country where few men go into education. They need lots of sport to channel their natural aggression, in schools which offer only two hours of sport a week. Ad they need courses that haven’t been ‘feminised’ and that are based on exams rather than coursework. Watch a group of young girls playing a sport and you will find them chatting and making friends. Watch a group of boys the same age and there is a complete contrast. They don’t talk, they just want to win. Boys need to compete and we need to nurture that instinct for without out it they will neither achieve or thrive. We now live in a world where girls outperform boys academically but still somehow think it is ok to inject themselves with Botox and aspire to be ‘footballers wives’. Surely the true lasting legacy of feminism should be about ensuring that our sons are equal to our daughters. To condemn them to the second-rate status we once endured would be the ultimate betrayal.
Uh… thanks Maria.. thats a nice summary. But I am looking to delve far deeper. The idea is to create a repository of all the intellectual thought prevalent in the manosphere (without all the aggressive oratory) as a sort of starting off point or ultimate crash course in the state of male-female relations today and how they came to be..
Sorry.. wasn’t clear.. I was looking for intellectual papers.. articles.. videos.. transcripts.. anthropology studies .. social sciences studies.. biology experiments.. that sort of thing. (Google Scholar has been a great help so far..)
I don’t have time to post links right now, but Roissy has been posting a great number of scientific research links lately that back up his claims. Also, though I haven’t watched any of them (they are long and I don’t do well just sitting and listening to someone speak for that period of time) I have heard very good things about GirlWritesWhat. She has a youtube channel, I believe. There are more, but my mind is drawing a blank right now.
I am sorry about that! I did ‘waffle’ on a bit and for that I am sorry. Along with Stingray, there are various authors on the manosphere who have the scientific approach that you need. Take care.
@Stingray, Yup.. girlwriteswhat is a good resource.
@Maria No worries. Thanks!
I have been thinking about this all morning: Pondering why the manosphere seems to be as aggressive and negative with women who are truly trying to “cross over” from being feminists to being enlightened “red pill” consumers as they are to the nazi feminists that visit.
An old thread but I know Stingray gets a ping when there’s a new post on an old topic. I have some specific thoughts but my being a relative newbie and you being a veteran I’d love to hear your thoughts first.
Maybe I can incorporate some new and different information into my thought processes before I commit.
meant to say “new, different and INFORMED” information. 🙂
It’s crazy busy here this morning and I have thoughts as to why that is, but first, did you read the Generalities post? It will help you to understand some. A lot of it is also a misconception due to solipsism, where it seems harsh and critical, when in reality people are just giving their thoughts and we can’t help seeing them in a negative light. It takes practice to get beyond this.
Some of it is great anger as many of the men who comment have literally lost everything. So I take the route of, let them be angry. They have very good reason to be so and i can’t every empathize with what they have gone through. Best to let them hash it out as best they can.
Many men have never met women who treat their husbands with respect and take care of him. Or if they have, it has been only one or two. The best thing you can do is to always, always keep in mind, they are not talking about you. If they do, they will directly address you. Otherwise, think to yourself, in a very honest manner, “does this really apply to me?” More often than you think, it will apply to you and you can further analyze it. But when it doesn’t, it is best to just let it go, because it does apply to an awful lot of women out there today.
Keep asking questions, Mina. It will help and I will answer them the best I can. You may get very angry with me, and if you do, I apologize, but I will steer you as straight as I am able. I will not lie to you, but therein lies the anger. The best I can do to support you is tell you the truth and sometimes it really hurts (I hope this doesn’t apply to you, I am speaking from my own experience).
I totally get the generalization need. Totally. I do suffer from seeing things as not being about me and wanting to say “all women are not like that” but I have learned about the nawalt, etc and try to bite my tongue.
HOWEVER. I don’t participate in order to do anything but introduce them to someone who was “part of the matrix” and is now “unplugged” – a WOMAN who gets what it is, sees it, saw it, removed it, lived it and is still living it.
“Many men have never met women who treat their husbands with respect and take care of him.”
Right! So I guess I wonder why they’d not be more curious to find out how it is “on the other side” (for people in a relationship that have had their eyes opened wide) and how the process from being “part of the matrix” to being “unplugged” worked, in practicality.
They talk a lot about “what if” and “in theory” but when they have resources in their midst who have already lived through it, they do everything possible to push them away. I understand that I still have remnants of my feminism attached to me in many ways, probably in some ways that I don’t even realize. But at the end of day my husband, my man, the person this is really about primarily is spectacularly happy with the results so far and is definitely curious to keep going and see where this goes. I make no attempt to present myself as “the perfect woman/wife” to anyone. But man, they take every tiny shred of what’s bad and amplify it instead of trying to take the good stuff, analyze it and USE it for themselves.
To me, I use resources. I don’t waste them. I don’t get it.
btw You will find that I am very logical and rational. It is really hard to make me mad. Probably the only way you can do that is to be obtuse, answer my questions in roundabout “woman” ways with touchy-feely language and hysterics. I can’t stand that sh1t. LOL
Meant to include the statement that I and the subsequent relationship changes that are taking place in this little corner of the planet are most definitely a work in progress as a lot of “this” (stuff they talk about in the manosphere) I figured out on my own in late last year. I have been making changes to myself as I got feedback from my husband and seeing the changes he made as a result – in himself and in his interaction with me.
Found the manosphere and all of theories much later (probably in July or so?) and a lot of what I’m finding is (sorry to say) already way behind where we have gone although I do like the “how to be woman/wife” information I am finding here as that doesn’t seem to be available anywhere else. My husband most definitely knows intrinsically how to be a man so he’s really not been involved in this process … I do all the research, the analysis, the implementation of new ideas and see where things go next.
It’s been really interesting. I am by no means perfect at this point – just a work in progress.
HOWEVER. I don’t participate in order to do anything but introduce them to someone who was “part of the matrix” and is now “unplugged” – a WOMAN who gets what it is, sees it, saw it, removed it, lived it and is still living it.
I know this is why you do this, but the only reason I know it, is because I am a woman. When a man reads this, he sees only that you are talking about yourself and it comes across as self concern and self promoting only. I saw this happen at Rollo’s and that is why they become frustrated with you. If you work on your comments, in wording them in a way that does not refer back to yourself, but still conveys the same information, people will be extremely receptive to you and you could do a world of good. It takes practice (it took me rewriting comments many times to get it and also knowing when it’s going to be acceptable to write about yourself and I still frequently mess it up) and even then, you will still always get a few men who will deride you. It is unavoidable, unfortunately.
Right! So I guess I wonder why they’d not be more curious to find out how it is “on the other side” (for people in a relationship that have had their eyes opened wide) and how the process from being “part of the matrix” to being “unplugged” worked, in practicality.
Because on the men’s blogs, they want to know how it works for men and they don’t much care how it worked for women. So instead, talk about what your man did and how it in turn, affected you. That is what they are really interested in and then find the women’s blogs to go through your personal experience and what you did and how it affected your husband. You could really help a lot of people this way.
I am by no means perfect at this point – just a work in progress.
This goes for me as well. I think the point is to be a work in progress for the rest of our lives as becoming complacent is a marriage killer.
I am very happy that you found your way here, Mina.
Very interesting, good insight. Thanks!!
I guess I have to ask myself then what I have to contribute.
Probably not much. I’ll just stay out of it, easier on everyone. 🙂
… only because in my case, between the two of us I am actually doing most of the changing and he’s changing in relation to me, not the other way around. I guess it’s kind of backwards but it seems to be working.
however like you said – probably irrelevant to them. even though here’s an example of a woman in a relationship who “woke up” first … but there doesn’t seem to be any way to communicate that and I am not sure it’s worth my effort to try. sad to say. I’m not a great “soft” communicator, it’s a lot of work for me.
… either they want the data I’m serving or they don’t; I don’t have the time or inclination to Teflon-coat it.
The men might not be interested in what you did, but many women certainly would be.
Also, if your husband is changing, how he is changing and how it affects your feelings and reactions to him might be incredibly helpful to men. You would likely very much like Athol Kay’s site Married Man sex life. He has a forum there as well with a lot of men and women talking about what they have done to help and/or change their marriage. There are also many people looking for more things they could do to make more improvements.
Also, your insight is very welcome here, as well.
I don’t get along with Athol. I had a difference of opinion with him on whether women should be allowed to post in every topic on his forum (I thought “No”) and after I acknowledged his right to do as he pleased with his board (and my propensity to have an opinion different than the majority most of the time), he called me a troll (there were any number of possible responses, that one was a bit limp-wristed.) So I don’t participate in anything he’s got going on any more; he lost credibility with me there.
Also I didn’t really feel that my participation there was providing any benefit to me personally. I was spending a lot of time but not really getting anything out of it useful to me. I am honestly not even sure what I am looking for – just trying to figure out what to think about everything that’s happening in my world I guess. 🙂 I may or may not keep posting here although I do like reading what you write. Good stuff.
Thanks for the help, I really appreciate your taking time out to respond.
Sorry to hear that, Mina.
I do hope you stick around, but I know what you mean about not knowing what you are looking for. Keep following the blog rolls at the different sites you like. You may find a few that ring true with you. I hope you find it.
You’re welcome and any time. 🙂
Something I have been thinking about for the past few days in relation to this discussion and one I wonder if you shed any light on. The Manosphere likes to compare and use visuals from the movie The Matrix to describe Feminism / the Feminine Imperative / Our Current Social Paradigm.
Do you know if any of them have given any thought to the possibility that this “Social Matrix” is just a sub-routine that is enabled by, dependent on and impacted by a larger Matrix???
From this link: http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix2.html
“How Could You Tell If You Are In A Matrix?
Consider the predicament of Neo and his fellow rebels in the trilogy. They know there are many Matrices. They lead parts of their lives inside a Matrix. They know that most of their compatriots spend their whole lives in a Matrix. Given this, they should be extremely reluctant to think that they have escaped their Matrix. What appears to be an escape could easily just be simulated escape, so that they exit one level of the Matrix only to reemerge at another. The Wachowski brothers can of course stipulate that this is not the case and that the heroes really do get to experience “real” reality. But if Neo were rational, he would never be able to be at all confident that this is what happens.”
Yes, depending on the topic at hand. Some refer to swallowing the red pill in stages or that it gets caught in their throat. Some speak of spitting it back out and some talk of going further and further down the rabbit hole.
People also speak of other matrices on terms of the Standard American Diet, I’ve seen talk of vaccines, and other matrices. There is talk of where all of this started and why (the Rockefellers) and many others.
This is one of the things I like about reading around. You would think things would stale after awhile, but people are continually taking it deeper or in a different direction. It’s fascinating.
I’ve read the exchanges between you and Sting above. I’d offer the following:
1. It’s not personal.
2. It’s not about you.
3. You will not understand everything about the male experience, because you’re not a man. There are frustrations we have that are exclusive to the male experience.
For example, almost no woman alive will ever know what it is like to think about sex literally every waking moment of every day for years on end and be completely powerless to satisfy it because you are completely unable to attract any member of the opposite sex. You will never, ever understand what that is like.
Almost no woman will ever be able to understand the head pounding, seething frustration that results from doing everything your own parents told you to do in order to get women to like you; and find not only are you failing spectacularly, you are actively repelling women and causing them to get skeeved out.
Almost no woman will ever have even the faintest grasp of the knowledge that a man cannot show negative emotions to his own wife, such as anger, fear, frustrations, or despair; because he knows that if he does so, it will kill her attraction.
Hope this helps.
You’re going to hear things about your gender and its near-universal characteristics that will make you very uncomfortable. Some things that men do which hinder intergender relationships:
1. We are not empathic. We simply don’t care too much about others’ feelings or how words or conduct will affect relationships.
2. We are not nearly as good at nonverbal communication as women are.
3. Without red pill knowledge, we are terrible at reading subtle facial, gesture and other nonverbal cues from women. We are terrible at knowing whether a woman is flirting with us or interested in us; or is not interested in us.
4. We take words at face value. Before the red pill, many of us thought “Let’s just be friends” meant we had a shot with her as long as we were her buddies and got to hang out with her.
5. We are less interested in the processes of relationships, and are more interested in the ultimate outcomes they are expected to produce. That’s why you often hear men say “Cut to the chase” or “bottom line it for me” or “what do you need me to do/say/get”. It’s also why what men do is a means to a goal — earning money, getting sex, finishing a task. We want it done. We don’t care much how it gets done.
As a corollary to this, we are prone always to take the path of least resistance. Whatever will accomplish what we want or need while expending the least amount of effort, that is what we will do. This is why men often simply give up with wives, saying “Whatever you want, dear” or “What do you want to do?” If these things will get it done with minimal effort, that’s good enough for us.
6. We tend to pedestalize women and attribute virtuous qualities to them that they do not have and extend to them relationship power that they should not have and do not deserve.
Also, as for taking words at face value: when we say we don’t care what color of paint you put on the kitchen walls, we are not trying to brush you off or get rid of you. We are also not telling you we don’t care about how nice our houses are.
It is just that we really don’t give a damn what color you paint the kitchen. We really don’t care, and please don’t ask me to care. Just pick a color and let’s buy it so we can go home and have sex.
7. A man views every interaction with a woman as potentially a sexual one. To a man, every interaction he has with a woman has sexual undertones. This is true even if he is married or celibate. Every time he sees a woman he notices her face, shape and body type, and in a split second in his mind he assigns to her a sexual market value. A man notices and assesses all the women he sees, every time, every minute of every day.
This is because a man’s attraction filters are much, much wider than a woman’s filters. Out of any random ten women, a random man will be attracted physically to at least half of them and probably more.
Women do not do this with men. Unless a man is attractive to her in some way, he is simply a human being she has to deal with for whatever reason. Women notice only the physically attractive men, or the men who they perceive as having some social or sexual status through some attribute the men have, whether it be his job, his prominence, his natural talents, or his personality. All other men are simply invisible to her. Out of any random ten men, an average woman will be attracted perhaps to 1 or 2 at the most. Then she might only select one of them if told she has to pick the best one, because she doesn’t like any of them.
I am speaking more of there being a larger Matrix that actually enables and impacts this “Social Matrix” ….
For Example if you look at 3rd world countries or places like Egypt which have recently undergone huge turmoil and upheaval, you find NO Feminism, no feminine imperative and no “Social Paradigm” or “Social Matrix” like we have here in the US.
Why is that? Because people are totally focused on Survival and the basic three: Food, Clothing, Shelter and don’t have the time, energy or resources for more than that. Because their time is 100% consumed with the necessities of life these folks have already returned to (or never left) the paradigm of a fully agrarian, locally based, patriarchal lifestyle. Women stay home and cook and mind the chickens and mend the clothes so that that the men can go out into the world (which is in some places, like Egypt, very dangerous to women) and secure food, clothing and whatever their further needs might be for defense and shelter, etc. They don’t have to think about what their “Social Matrix” needs to be based on, they don’t have the luxury for such things. So their “Social Matrix” is based on the lifestyle that provides the most efficiency for the family unit to function and survive rather than some high and mighty ideals like ensuring women feel “valued” and “equal” to men.
Look to countries in the midst of turmoil now, too, to dispense with any sorts of Feminist-based “Social Matrix” they might have in place today like the PIIGS: Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. The loss of excess energy, economic wealth, and resources will cause any movement in the direction of Feminism in those countries to retract back to the basics of an agrarian, patriarchal lifestyle as well.
Matter of fact look back into the history of the human race and you can find instances of this rise and fall of “Feminist” based ideals to rise and fall with … what? The rise and fall of the “Modern Civilization Matrix” – a paradigm powered by excess/surplus everything. Energy, resources, time. A paradigm that the US experience since the 1950’s has followed – more or less and coinciding nicely with the availability of cheap, abundant fossil fuel.
And what is this Modern Civilization Matrix made up of? The belief in endless available energy to power all of the trappings of our modern lifestyle. The belief that we will always have the luxury of excess time and energy to pursue high value activities not necessarily directly related to Food, Clothing and Shelter. The belief that because things are as they now that they shall ever be on into the future. Even though history has shown that all civilizations have a Beginning, A Zenith and an Ending.
It is my belief that the Modern Civilization Matrix is the larger matrix that drives and controls the Social Matrix that the manosphere is fighting against. Feminism and the Feminist Imperative can ONLY exist within the bigger picture of the Modern Civilization Matrix because it DEPENDS on excess energy and resources. If that is true, then it is true too that 1. Anyone unplugged from the Modern Civilization Matrix would therefore be automatically unplugged from all Matrices dependent on it and 2. When the Modern Civilization Matrix falters or fails so will all Matrices dependent on it.
Conceptually what this would mean is that people like Roissy and Rollo and Athol and you and all of the other bloggers and leaders of the manosphere who believe themselves to be Morpheus and his crew riding around in the Nebuchadnezzar unplugging poor unfortunate souls from the clutches of our Feminist-based “Social Matrix” in reality could be thought of as Agents from the Modern Civilization Matrix posing as Morpheus and his crew and ensuring that all of the newly unplugged see themselves as “free men” when in reality they are free only from the Social Matrix subroutine but still a slave to the greater Modern Civilization Matrix beyond.
Introduction to Modern Civilization Matrix. If you haven’t met it yet, you should.
Chris Martensons Crash Course: “Weaves together a series of seemingly disparate topics into a single story. We will discuss the economy, energy and the environment because it’s where these fields overlap and intersect that the greatest story of any generation will get told.”
(taken without permission, please forgive the fair use here and my apologies if this is “non-standard”):
CassMan November 8th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Another great post that touches on some key points. I do not have the time to go into this area and from skimming the comments I have noticed at least one poster who has clued into this factor not represented in the article.
The socio-economic pressures that are being applied to the entire world (not just the Western world) will eventually create an environment where women no longer have the luxury of dictating how life operates. Simply put, things are ‘too good’ right now in society here in the West, there is no hard life or sacrifices being made. The state provides financial support to all who are unwillingly or unable to participate in the labour force and as a whole, society in general.
We live in a debt based society, and for the first time in human history every major economy is on the same fiat system. This is an experiment that transcends genders, on a grand scale. Since every fiat or debt based currency has ultimately gone to its intrinsic value of 0, it isn’t hard to see that a system that requires exponential credit (debt) growth cannot sustain itself in perpetuity.
We won’t have to worry about perpetuity, the debt is now staggering and you are witnessing the slow death of the US empire and its hold on the most powerful position a country can have in the day of Fiat: The World’s Reverse currency. I won’t go into the power this has afforded the West, the point is people’s habits, including mating, will shift as their economic prowess declines and sacrifices that once seemed trivial or even unimaginable, start to become reality.
Women are the biggest benefactor of fiat currency systems, an area I have seen the Manosphere skim over at best, completely ignore at worst. Economics (marco and micro) impact and influence mating habits, thus, they influence game. In summary, history is your best friend. When society has the luxury of affording itself ‘problems’ like getting more women into the powerful positions in government, shaming others for not having the latest Iphone #43459042, PVR’ing Honey Boo Boo and fighting over how soon Christmas music should start playing after Halloween, we see shit like this from Women, and Men, to a lesser extent. We don’t have daily concerns that force us back into our ancestral state of alertness. Our native instincts have been dulled from the advancement of society.
When Men and Women have to:
– Consciously plan out their meals in advance
– Put a higher value on safety in society (crime rates rise out of necessity)
– Find new ways of replacing goods and services society gifted (daycare, welfare, food stamps, student loans, etc)
– THINK FOR THEMSELVES
Then, and only then will you see a shift back towards traditional gender roles. Women will not give up what they have until they have a more powerful force applied to them. In this case, it will be the sobering reality of economics, and the principle that everyone has to pay up, eventually. This ‘free ride’ which the entire world has been on since the 70′s when Nixon convinced the World to abandon the Gold standard is about over.
I find it sad that the only free market mechanism in place today to stop the tide of Feminism from driving right over the cliff is Greed. Excessive Greed. I would much rather hold my head up high and pronounce to the Manosphere that Men will take back this world by simply being Men.
This is not the case, Men will take back the world out of necessity and survival. Empires fall when Women rise to power, once most (if not all ) current foes are vanquished. Simply put, it is often a luxury society foolishly affords itself when it has nothing better to do or worry about, when it propels woman above men. We built this, then we gave it to them, not the other way around.
(a great post that links the Feminist imperative to the Modern Civilization Matrix and also goes so far as to link their mutual demise.)
Ok, yes. That is talked about from time to time, mostly just skimming around the edges. Many understand that as the economy fails and as civilizations continues down it’s current path that things will necessarily return to our natural roles. A few openly discuss it. You may very much like Vox Populi as her discusses this fairly often (it’s written by the Vox Day who also does Alpha Game Plan. You may also like the Hawaiian Libertarian who writes about it some as well. I don’t think most commenters really get to much into other than it being understood that it is inevitable. (BTW, don’t worry about posting links or comments. It is all public and no one minds. It is quite standard to do so.)
Given your interest in this, you might be interested in the book The Fourth Turning by William Straus and Neil Howe.
I agree that many would still be considered stuck in the Modern Civilization Matrix, but while many are more than willing to break free from the social matrix, many are not willing to give up what would be necessary to leave the other. It’s nothing short of going off the grid. Some go part way, some none and few go all the way.
I disagree with your last statement. It is not necessary to disconnect and go off the grid to unplug from the Modern Civilization Matrix, it is only necessary to have your eyes opened. It is a mindset. It also acts as a fantastic “this is important, this is not important” filter when you have an idea where things are headed and what impacts it will have on everything in your world. (OTOH If you do decide to take it to an extreme and unplug physically: More power to you!)
Insofar as the link with Feminism (or the link to this “Social Matrix”) it could be noted that a lot of topics bantered about in the Manosphere as being critically important to spend time and energy on, when filtered through the “but what if the Modern Civilization Matrix falls?” question, suddenly seem wasteful to spend time and energy on as they would cease to exist organically as a result of the faltering or failure of the Modern Civilization Matrix.
So it follows that if you believe the larger Matrix WILL fail then your list of what topics in the “Social Matrix” are important to concern yourself with become much different. Conversely if you believe that the Modern Civilization Matrix will fall, your list of what topics ARE critically important become much different than what the Social Matrix finds important.
At the end of the day if the Modern Civilization Matrix does falter or fail, a strong family unit and a coming together of neighbors and community are what will see people through. The Social Matrix has a lot to offer to help create that strong unit and there’s a lot of value there. The key seems to be deciding what topics are worthy to spend time and energy on and what to discard / ignore as being irrelevant because of what the future holds.
BTW: Thank you for the reference to Vox Populi and the Hawaiian Libertarian. 🙂
Deti: Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. As you may have gathered from my thinking out loud with Stingray here I am following a little bit of a different path of logic than I think you thought I was. I do appreciate your caring enough to make an effort to steer me in the right direction – it’s just that I am following a different map at the moment.
Sorry, one correction. Should have said “The Manosphere has a lot to offer to help create that strong unit and there’s a lot of value there.”
It is not necessary to disconnect and go off the grid to unplug from the Modern Civilization Matrix, it is only necessary to have your eyes opened. It is a mindset. It also acts as a fantastic “this is important, this is not important” filter when you have an idea where things are headed and what impacts it will have on everything in your world. (OTOH If you do decide to take it to an extreme and unplug physically: More power to you!)
I agree with this. I also agree with the possibility of a lot of what we write as being a waste of time. However, I would like to think that if/when such a thing comes to pass, it will help many in adjusting to the new dynamic and it will definitely help in understanding what is going on. Depending on how we come out the other side, women may have much more power or none beyond what they are willing to use (feminine wiles).
a strong family unit and a coming together of neighbors and community are what will see people through.
I pray you are right, Mina.
The key seems to be deciding what topics are worthy to spend time and energy on and what to discard / ignore as being irrelevant because of what the future holds.
I think this is why there are so many bloggers discussing such a wide variety of things. People interested can go to several different sites and cater themselves in doing so.
A heads up at Vox Populi. If you decide to comments, read the Rules first, in the upper left corner of his site. His comment section is quite unique and unforgiving. I learned a tremendous amount there and it is also where I first learned of Game.
“A heads up at Vox Populi. If you decide to comments, read the Rules first, in the upper left corner of his site. His comment section is quite unique and unforgiving.”
Noticed that FIRST, thank goodness. I read though a bunch of stuff already (thank you for the referral, much more my cup of tea!!) and I am definitely unqualified to contribute anything there at this point in time. Which is just the place where I like to be: in learning mode, soaking up the data. 🙂
I will probably still come here and poke at the topics that I find interesting and I appreciate a TON your taking time from your life to help me work throught this. Thank you.
Any time, Mina
Pingback: Ask Your Questions | On the Rock
I clicked on your link to find out how I am unknowingly a feminist, but it took me to a whole collection of articles (one of them explained “game” to me, sort of), but I’m not sure which one you were referencing. Can you tell me which one I should read or post another link, please?
I am looking for a more specific article. It’s might take some time. Check back.
Thank you. I will.
Here is a good place to start.
Rollo writes in a very clinical manner. Don’t mistake this for disliking women. He is blunt and to the point as he is writing for men. The basic gist of it is, that people of my generations and even some of yours are so entrenched in feminism, that it is so normal for us, that many of us don’t even realize what it is. An example being no-fault divorce and that unhappiness should be a fine reason to divorce someone. Another being “happy wife, happy family”. It boils down to appeasing the wife and giving her what she says she wants which ends up making her even more frustrated. There are more links in the other thread you may want to check out that I asked Deti for. My brain does not do details well and I couldn’t remember any of the names of the posts to be able to find them.
“Most women base their generalizations based on a combination of mainstream media messages, what they want the world to be, their own experiences, and projecting the desires and behaviors of women onto how men ‘obviously’ must work. Because there’s no differences in the sexes as per feminism, right?”
“Men crate our generalizations based on reason, statistics, research, our own experiences (though we tend to acknowledge outliers exist, we just don’t care when generalizing), and a desire to take and control things to make them better. If we project, we often do so in our communication methods and assumptions that women will react to cold logic and reason like men do.”
I going to disagree with you on one area. Men are not immune to projecting their desires and behavior on to others as well. When men come across other people of the same gender that express different desires and behavior, must often the men will disgard them as “not being real men”. This projection affects their ability to reason and research properly without bias.
Both gender have their own way of dealing with cognitive dissonance. Women have emotions standing in the way of the truth. Men have their ego and pride *which can be considered as emotions* standing in the way.
Very well written. However I sort of disagree that women are naturally solipsistic(I am a man), I don’t think anyone is naturally solipsistic. I know they’re more instinctual but that’s still not solipsism. Then again I’m not 100% sure either way.
For better or worse, we don’t use the term solipsism in the same way it was originally intended. Women don’t actually believe “that the self is all that can be known to exist.”. However, what we do is see most everything through the prism of our own lives. If someone comes in and says, my experience says X, Y, and Z and a women has never had that same experience, she will be more prone to highly disbelieve X, Y, and Z for the only reason being she hasn’t or her close friends/family hasn’t experienced it. Our view of the world tends to be very close to ourselves and our own families. There are differing levels of this as women can definitely make themselves see beyond while other women have great difficulty with this. Being aware that it is something that women innately do makes it easier for us to see beyond our own created lives. Men do have some solipsistic tendencies as well, but it is to a far lesser extend, naturally than it is for women.
Pingback: One Year Ago | On the Rock
Kukla, it could be the reason that you disbelieve solipsism is solipsism. Stingray explained it well. It is a generality that I believe with every fiber of being.
I could prove it if it was possible to lead a group of observers into a mixed group of comment makers on forums where gender in church is discussed. On any given day, over a period of YEARS, on the biggest forum for Christians, Christianforums.com, clever eh?, there are multiple women arguing from the standpoint, “that generality is not true because me and my sisters and friends are not like that”
Same women will say, plainly, that generalization is invalid….period. That we cannot generalize because we are all unique, and that my wife is not interchangeable with another wife. Like that. All the while they then would, for example, recommend psych counseling and such, which would not even exist but for the validity of generalizations. Imagine if a couple comes for counseling and the therapist literally had ZERO in general knowledge from where to begin. It would take years to just establish who he/she is dealing with. But those same women will dismiss generalizations because they cannot stand to admit that they are a part of one.
I add to solipsism that its cousin is the awesome awesomeness special specialness factor that begins in primary school and sets women up for what we see manifest in young womens behavior. They are SPECIAL don’t you know? That and solipsism together creates a super-solipsism and narcissism.
Low of solipsism said:
But I thought all people men included do solipsism or am I just being solipsistic by saying this? In the philosophical metaphysical sense of the word I believe (maybe solipsistically) that we use this term too liberally. Someone who was truly solipsistic would be dysfunctional in society wouldn’t they? Perhaps men believe that women can be inconsiderate, stubborn, self deluded, irrational (that is an acknowledged facet of the entire human condition in behavioural economics ), whimsical, temperamental, big headed, highly strung, changeable, unreliable, ignorant, illogical, subjective and just well selfish in certain situations or as a constant. When a woman enforces that divorce to the chagrin and heartbeak of her man she doesn’t believe your thoughts, feelings and rationale don’t exist – she probably figured your brain is not a figment of her imagination but is simply choosing to ignore your thoughts/feelings/opinions….Maybe, maybe that is a possibility more painful to deal with than assuming prevailing solipsism of the female race 😥 .
Reblogged this on My Heart Guarded and commented:
A new area of the web
Liselle St Germain said:
Why on earth would a woman enter a place where women are reviled and treated like the antichrist? You would have to be a masochist.
Not a masochist, no. I’ve been in the manosphere for well over 4 years now and in all that time, I’ve never been treated like you describe, even when I argue. If you go in with battle on your mind, you’re going to get battle in return. If you want respect, you have to respect first. It’s not just going to be given, and why should it? And should you respond, I am not talking about civility, but rather true respect. Civility will be returned as well, as long as you offer it first.
Stingray – That was not my experience, even here. I was civil and respectful, and you did indeed treat me well, but others did not. That’s why I lost interest in trying to understand the manosphere. I was busy reading all the links you gave me, and some jerk was criticizing me for not converting fast enough and calling me a troll. I still get updates on some of your posts, but Liselle’s comment was the first one that made me want to reply. The hatred toward women out there made me physically ill. Run, Liselle, run!
If I am remembering the thread correctly, you were treated just like any man who were to make the same comments you did. This is how men talk to and respect each other. We asked for equality and now many men are giving it to us. We have no place to complain about that. We are getting what we asked for.
You are remembering incorrectly. I asked for answers and for time to consider. One of your buddies then attempted to tear my throat out because I wasn’t back in a couple of days agreeing with everything the posts said. And you defended him.
Show me a link and I will attempt to explain. I can’t remember.
By Matt: She is a foil and she could have been any other of a thousand faceless trolls.
The hardest thing for the modern western woman to deal with is imagining a world that is not all about her. Now here comes a lengthy conversation that began with a specific commenter in mind, but look closer and she realizes that this birthday cake doesn’t actually have her name on it. They’re not talking about what she wants to talk about; they’re not not provoked by her foot-stamping at all. We have not conformed to her petulance, and she has no skill set to deal with it. She will seek other outlets for her attention, other chambers that will echo pleasantly back to her ear.
Indeed, someone of her age has little chance to ponder reassessing the principles that constitute her identity, much less to effect reform.
Ok. I don’t know how I responded to this. The link you left is not correct. It is to a comment left by M and I don’t see you on that thread at all.
I didn’t find Matt’s exact comment that you left, but I did find and briefly read through the thread again. I explained in that thread why I defended Matt and again, he was treating you with the respect a man pays. You were looking for respect like a woman expects, which is what I tried to give you. The way men respect each other is not the same as we understand the concept. Which is exactly why a lot of women find the manosphere very distasteful. What women see as hate, is how men communicate to each other and know full well it isn’t hate. When we asked for equality, some of them started treating us exactly as they would men. This is what we said we wanted. Who are we to back out on this now and say, but wait, that’s not what I meant?
In short, we want them to understand us without trying very hard to understand them. We say we want fairness, but where do we give it?
I considered that by asking questions and reading the recommended posts, I was being fair. I was trying to understand. This is what I got back…
If you were considering our words and references seriously, you would have asked many more by now, rather than to find new ways to get ticked off and then announce them as if we owe you compensation for self-inflicted wounds. (Matt)
On the contrary, we actually have every reason to believe you are *like that*. (You.)
Connie, do you consider Matt’s comments to be “hatred of women”? if so, why?
Connie, someone who is diligently trying to understand does not need to become defensive. You can understand without agreeing and still be perfectly civil without the defensive crouch.
Here is the whole of my comment and the whole of Matt’s. I defended Matt’s assertions. I didn’t defend my”buddy”. I still stand by that based on past experience. Again, if one doesn’t want people to think one is “like that”, one is going to have to prove otherwise by their actions. You were speaking to us like countless other women have before you. You didn’t act any differently. I believe you were trying to understand, but you were doing it from a defensive manner (even today you are getting a bit defensive though I see you trying). One cannot understand something like this in a crouch with hands up to protect. I don’t ask readers to fully agree, but if you want us to respect you in the way that you expect us to, you are going to have to drop the defensive manner and ask straightforward questions. If you don’t, the people here are going to to go on the offensive or at least defensive as well because you put them there.
That really is the million dollar question, isn’t it? Men actually hating women isn’t going to look like stern and dismissive words on the internet. People have lost perspective of what men are capable of when they get truly angry.
Good to see you around.
Stingray, here’s the comment Connie quotes: https://verusconditio.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/ask-your-questions/#comment-3974
Thank you, Sigyn. I was getting lost in the comments on that thread.
An Anonymous, Liberated Woman! said:
I am not surprised in the least that you have a list of “rules” for women (crazy enough) to enter the “manosphere,” (as you call it.) Of course, (in typical, normal, and quite predictive style), you tell these (obviously naive and EXTREMELY self loathing) women how to behave, and to essentially keep their mouths shut. On your list of “do’s and dont’s,” your advice of “don’t take anything personally” for these pathetic women is especially humorous to me! You simply MUST be kidding! All women need to take EVERYTHING personally that you sexually frustrated “incel” manosphere-lurking woman hater men both verbalize and write about us. The OBVIOUS truth is that if we were men, you “manosphere” female hating, dysfunctional, keyboard warrior “guys” would have absolutely no problems or (very immature) “axes to grind” with us AT ALL! You losers are insanely and disturbingly (obsessed) with us females! In your sick and pathetic minds, if you can’t control us, and also have unlimited, sexual access to our bodies 24/7, then we are essentially all “evil, man-hating, feminist bitches.” Truly sad. Newsflash: the current year is 2019, and us women have more “rights” and “freedom” than ever! Have fun enjoying your outdated, old fashioned, lame, caveman-style bullshit FANTASIES of us women submitting to you!