Understanding women left him with at worst an intense hatred for women, and at best a greatly reduced ability to feel love for women. The first is an overreaction to starting from a position of overlooking all sins committed by women. If you nurtured a fantasy that women are innately good then seeing their sins for the first time is bound to be jarring. This is especially true given that the widespread pass given to women has encouraged an immense amount of bad behavior. If you are struggling with this be careful not to paint all women with the same brush, and to understand the pass which modern men have offered women for what it really is, cruelty dressed as kindness.From the logical perspective, the metaphorical cracking of the pedestal should be no more troubling than the realization that girls are not, in fact, literally made out of sugar, spice, and everything nice. The distinction between what we want and what happens to be is no more earth-shattering when it applies to women and their behavior than to any other application of the is/ought problem.
This doesn’t mean there is no place for anger at injustice, but to keep the larger picture in perspective. This means not seeing “woman” as a faceless collective, but making a serious effort to see individual women for who they are. The “red pill” helps us understand their different temptations from ours, but understanding this should help us empathize and relate to our own imperfection. Key to this process is keeping in mind the importance of repentance.
And yet, it is emotionally difficult, if not shattering, for many men to realize that their paragons of virtue are no more virtuous than they are, that said paragons may actually, in fact, be considerably less virtuous from the male perspective than the man himself is. And how can a man rely upon a woman to inspire him to be a better man when he is already a more noble and virtuous individual than she has shown herself to be?
The answer is that if a man is relying upon a woman for inspiration, he is utilizing an unreliable crutch. A woman may be the prize, but she should not be the purpose. The runner does not run the race for the strip of colored silk that is his reward, it is the race and the victory that are the reward and the prize is only a reminder of it; the value of this sort of victory is not derived from the prize.
Honor, as was said in the movie Rob Roy, is a man's gift to himself. Virtue is his duty to God. Neither of these things are sexually appealing to women, they do not derive from women, and in their male form, they are not even necessarily relevant to them. Bitterness is not only not justified, it is the result of a philosophical category error.
It should always be kept in mind that the sabotaging that so many men suffer in their formative years at the hands of well-meaning women, clueless naturals, and deluded BETA males is not intentional. One must forgive them, even as one learns to completely ignore their advice, because they quite literally do not know what they are doing. After all, if it is difficult for a man to accept the observable reality of female lack of virtue with equanimity, how much harder, how much more shattering must it be, for a woman to do the same?
112 comments:
"how much more shattering must it be, for a woman to do the same?"
Not so much, really. She just requires the same boot to the head from the Holy Spirit that a man needs to tear down the feminist idolatries of this world. ;-)
Honor, as was said in the movie Rob Roy, is a man's gift to himself. Virtue is his duty to God. Neither of these things are sexually appealing to women
Not today. They used to be.
Yep. I wonder if Ray is going to chime in here with some more butt-hurtedness?
It is very interesting to watch the dynamics while I'm staying for a few weeks in Japan. They are dying a death of demographics because of declining alpha maleness. I"m interested to see how the growing economic earthquake and tsunami ends up reversing the decades long trend toward feminism here.
The pedestals constructed for women here are quite shiny, new, and technological.
Any man who is married for any length of time and still puts his wife on a pedestal is a fool. Or he simply does not pay attention to his wife.
It is amazing to me to see men who, after years and sometimes decades of marriage, will still refer to their wives as their "better halves" (in one case "better three quarters") or exclaim that they don't deserve their wives.
This false humility sickens me a lot and those of us who pay attention to the manosphere should call them out on it every time we encounter it.
----------
"Honor, as was said in the movie Rob Roy, is a man's gift to himself. Virtue is his duty to God. Neither of these things are sexually appealing to women"
"Not today. They used to be."
----------
Honor and virtue are not inherently sexually attractive in a man. They are not qualities that are immediately visible to a woman. Unlike Confidence, power over his surroundings, and physical form, which can be taken in at a glance, they must be gleaned from research over time, and from subtler clues. They are indeed ATTRACTIVE qualities, to those few who value them, but they are not SEXUALLY attractive. The only exception might be that older and more experienced women (years of carousel experience, both direct and 2nd hand) can perceive these qualities and notice how RARE they are. Pretty much any quality that is both rare and arguablly beneficial can up ones market value. But they still don't produce sexual attraction, only mildly improve what is already there.
I think it's normal for beta males to become disillusioned when they realize what the manosphere's talking about is truth. I know that if I had known what I know now and had tried to apply it in high school I could have actually had a few girlfriends, but I was a late bloomer, but better late than never, especially when one is married.
I think a lot of beta males are not only afraid of women, failure, and accepting the reality that they are not attractive to the opposite sex when they are being themselves, betas can also be much lazier than alphas and sometimes might lament the state of the red pill because they realize all the work they'd have to do to bag a few girls, and even if they do bag the girls they'd have to keep that behavior up, they can never just turn it off and hope the girl will still stay with them or be as attracted to them.
Especially in a society of egalitarianism, realizing just how much personal responsibility you hold when it comes to dating can overwhelm the recently initiated. Vox's post sounds very stoic to me, becoming indifferent to what you cannot control, accepting that placing people on pedestals is your own fault, and it is your responsibility to see the world for what it is, but not to blame it for being what it is, because you can't control that. I think embittered betas would do well to read Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius.
Much depends on the shift from woman as mother (children asap from the marriage), to woman as personal singular sex object.
Families with multiple children as the norm changes both the Father (as opposed to Husband) and the Mother (as opposed to Wife).
I know, noone wants to go THAT far, but read JP2's Theology of the Body. It is the Why. The answer to the heresy. The full answer.
The pedestal did not say "woman" but "mother".
It is the solmnety of the Annunciation. "Let it be done to me according to thy word". ... "and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us".
For an AWCA, that was one of the most compassionate and and humanistic (in a good way)thoughts I've ever read espoused by another.
Well, it's not like any women have done anything - something - in order to NOT be seen as parts of a faceless collective. As long as they keep circling the wagons around any woman who gets into any sort of conflict with any man for any reason, they don't really have grounds to complain about the AWALT argument.
It should also be pointed out that male unsexiness isn't a crime that may be punished in any chosen way possible. In fact it's not a crime at all Yes, many beta husbands are unsexy. But that in no way justifies disemboweling them in divorce court.
"It should always be kept in mind that the sabotaging that so many men suffer in their formative years at the hands of well-meaning women, clueless naturals, and deluded BETA males is not intentional."
As long as it's done in order to turn them into obedient worker drones for the material benefit of women, than yes, you can bet your ass it's intentional.
Honor and virtue are not inherently sexually attractive in a man. They are not qualities that are immediately visible to a woman. Unlike Confidence, power over his surroundings, and physical form, which can be taken in at a glance, they must be gleaned from research over time, and from subtler clues.
Again - not today, they used to be.
There was a time when honor and virtue were immediately visible, not least because they conferred social status.
Honor and virtue are not inherently sexually attractive to women probably because women do not see them as tied to resource accumulation, and in fact may see them as a liability. An ambitious 'bad boy' is willing to break rules and take advantage of situations to 'get his,' which his women also sees as 'hers.' In contrast, the honorable and virtuous man may refuse to take advantage of others or may even sacrifice his own resources, maybe even his life, for a cause or others. The man will go off to fight; the woman will want to prevent him, not for his sake, but to keep from losing her resource(s).
If you really internalize the red pill lessons, the best you can think of women as a group is that they are a sometimes attractive, generally nice-smelling bunch of easily manipulated mental defectives who can be fun to keep around if they are well-behaved, but they are inherently amoral and should not be relied up under any circumstances, except insofar as you are counting on them to act somewhat consistently with their own short term interests and with utter disregard for yours.
As a guy who usually got his way with women - something between Alpha and Sigma or "clueless natural," doesn't really matter - the red pill tastes nasty. Those girls I banged weren't even in it for mutual fun... I was just being used, and when they shouted at me for not calling or for seeing "that whore" on them, they were only yelling at a mirror, worried about how my philandering made them look. The Alpha Widow doesn't really care about the Alpha; she cares about how she looks to other women when he's cheating around.
The knowledge does screw up relationships. I do appreciate what my wife does a bit more for the family - she's overcoming some natural handicaps when she plays well with others - but I'm also a lot more critical about her (typical for women) failings, and quite frankly I now ignore her (typical for women) outbursts/shit tests and gripes. I don't give a shit if she's not haaaaapy, and don't even complain about her behavior any more when she's screwing up; I just give her a shitty look and keep quiet, as my dad used to do, and suddenly the drama stops. My German Shepherd responds the same way to the same stimulus. Is this usually happy woman my soulmate? No. Nobody is or will be, such things don't exist and I agree with the bitterest red pill'ers, you're lying to yourself if you say they do. She's just a woman who sticks with me because she has no better options, at least not right now, and she's post-wall, so there's probably not going to be a lot of good options for her. I'm a pretty damn good option based on where I am in life and how women in general act toward me, but how do you emotionally invest in somebody to whom you are the last best choice? You can't give really deep and heartfelt emotional love, but you can do your duty. Sure, this is condescending, but the old framework of a loyal woman inside a faithful marriage, in whom a man could jointly participate in the female fantasy of romantic love, is gone. That was a reciprocal relationship; the new relationship with divorce laws and utter primacy of momentary female whims does not offer men any reciprocal value, except for (in some instances) a somewhat steady (66%) framework in which to have and raise children, and sex (though if you've got any game, there's not a problem getting plenty of that outside of marriage). So if you are going to choose to be in marriage, you need to figure out why you're there. For me it's providing stability to my kid, and although I got into it on a notion of romantic love, I stick with it because an oath once taken is binding.
If I'd known then what I know how, I'd have either avoided marriage and just bed hopped into my old age, or would have put a premium on marrying a very young, very hot, very happy and upbeat woman. Knowing why women marry and stick around, you might want to think about what you're going to get long term, and sweetness and happiness would be worth a lot in an older woman. It would sure beat the plague of Unhaaaaapy that inflicts most of them.
I don't know if that's being bitter, or just realistic. The real bitterness here for me is at a macro level. Everything we've done about gender so far in the West in the last 40 years is wrong, and it's probably irretrievable and there's no good path forward to recommend to our sons.
Again - not today, they used to be.
There was a time when honor and virtue were immediately visible, not least because they conferred social status.
When you first stated this I thought you probably had a naive romanticized understanding of women in the past. Whether you realize it or not, your second statement holds the actual truth of the matter. It was not that honor and virtue were sexually appealing to women in the past, social status was and still is part of what is sexually appealing to a woman. Women's fundamental nature has not changed. We are still driven (whether cognitively or not) to select for the same attributes. What has changed is a woman's freedom to make those selections herself. In the past, when a man would meet her father's approval - that was all the social status he needed for her to be quite content sexually.
The lies of society have done tremendous damage to women. Fathers have placed value on their daughter's education and career goals, propelling daughters into competition with men. Mothers have supported their daughters in their flight from the hearth and the cradle into the world of competition with men. Fathers no longer place value on a potential suitor's honor and virtue and in consequence no longer elevate a young man's social status based on these traits. Even worse, rarely is father even involved in a daughter's selection of a mate. So now a woman selects based on the culture's collective opinion of social status. This has become an ever shrinking pool of potential suitors for women.
A father once could determine the sexual status of his daughter and place his stamp of approval (social status) on a man suitable to her SMV. Fathers with ugly daughters weren't afraid to acknowledge as such. Today, everyone's daughter is a beautiful princess and the world is her oyster.
The red pill is like waking up from a dream in which, even if it was rough at times, you had hope. Hope that some day you could have that perfect relationship of unconditional love that mama (or society) conditioned you to think was not just possible but likely. The red pill gives you new, better hope. But for a lot of men, before they see that new hope, they see the life go out of the old hope.
There's a transitory some fellows may get stuck in. The blue pill is dead but the red pill is still traveling down the pipes, or is actually stuck in those pipes, not fully deployed. They see all of the horror of sexual relations without yet seeing all of the potential glory once you learn what you're doing. (I remember Xsplat had a post about this a while ago about taking half of the red pill.)
This happens in the scientific community. Scientist A as young prodigy devotes his life to the development of some discovery. As he nears retirement, the discovery "retracts." The more it is observed, the less reliable it becomes.
It may even get to the point where it is disproven, yet an entire financial and emotional system has developed and calcified around the "incorrect" science.
Now you've got to wait for the "star" scientist and chief proponent to die/retire, for his funded groups to begin squabbling about their continued existence, and for the whole process to "self-correct" to a new (most of the time, bad) idea.
The red pill gives you new, better hope. But for a lot of men, before they see that new hope, they see the life go out of the old hope.
This is a great way to put it. I've always looked at the Red Pill as profoundly empowering. It give a man tools to use, it means he's not entirely at the mercy of the winds of fate.
But the tools don't use themselves, a man has to put effort into them. Commenter A up above mentioned laziness. That's probably a big part of it too. The Red Pill means you gotta work for it. The fantasy is that everyone has their soulmate and a great woman is out there for you, just the (lazy, overweight, non-confrontational and unambitious) way you are.
I do think the Red Pill is harder, much much harder, on a woman raised with the Blue Pill lies. For a man, the Red Pill tells him he has to work, but the goal is achievable. But for a 30 year old never-married (or 40 year old just-divorced) woman to swallow the Red Pill...
Expectations are often unrealistic; we often make bad choices, but usually, we find/pick our equal on some level. All of us are less than we hoped in the eyes of our beloved and vice versa. How we own up and behave after builds or exposes character.
The only reasonable thing for men and women to do is have more realistic views of the "other" (the point of Game?) and hold oneself responsible for one's actions and emotions (no one else is responsible for my happiness or fulfillment).
Prior to becoming a Christian, I debated every day about leaving my marriage. My husband slammed the door more than a few times as he exited the house, declaring loudly he was going to get a divorce. Until I was brought to my knees, I would have said the fault was all his and would have found many to agree with me, including his family; tellingly, my family would have sided with him!
Praise God, He broke me and even though our marriage is far from what it should have been (and our son struggles in life from the burden of his parent's troubled marriage), we stuck it out. Bitterness and disillusionment are the easy reactions of being human. I don't for one second believe I'm entitled to wallow in the negatives, but like a saint who sins, I too often do.
The good news, regardless of how we feel - or don't feel, as in physical sensations of love, sexual arousal, soul-mate/emotional closeness - we can behave as we should with mutual appreciation and respect. I admire my husband now more than I ever did, especially the things I used to see as flaws. I can't speak for him. I can only hope he hasn't completely regretted his losing investment in me.
Well, it's not like any women have done anything - something - in order to NOT be seen as parts of a faceless collective. As long as they keep circling the wagons around any woman who gets into any sort of conflict with any man for any reason, they don't really have grounds to complain about the AWALT argument.
Paging Stickwick, SarahsDaughter, and Sunshine Mary...
Oh wait, they haven't done squat or ever sided with a man over a woman, have they?
Or maybe they don't count because No True Woman would ever do such a thing.
Paging Stickwick, SarahsDaughter, and Sunshine Mary...
Thanks, Sigyn. Also, Stingray and Spacebunny.
Sensing a pattern here ...
I never confused women with purity or goodness. I can see how that mistake is made though. It's a two parter. The first part is that women aren't as capable of doing the evil that men do. Their evil is discrete, much like farts. They do both, but they cover really well. And their sins being slightly different, we don't even always know them when we see them. The next part is that, sexually, they are extremely pleasing. This gets construed with virtue by some men.
The first step in figuring this out is to realize that sins of a woman are quite a different thing from sins of a man. Actually, before you go there, figure out what sin means. To a woman, it means something quite different, and yet I don't think there is any allowance for that alternative view of things if there is a difference in what men and women are called upon to do and not do.
When you realize egalitarianism and suffrage are evil, lies, you can begin to discern this matter. Until then you will be lost in an unbeatable maze. It is you against, well, you, in your mind, until you bring in God. Then it begins to make some sense. You still have to surrender to God to begin with wisdom, but... that's a different problem.
Stickwick,
Thanks!! Hmm, I'm wondering now if S has any significance. . . ;)
The first part is that women aren't as capable of doing the evil that men do.
Be careful here. Women may not be known for murdering or serial killing or world domination like men, but women are known for manipulating men into doing evil things for them. I don't know which is objectively more evil, that which one sees or that which one doesn't.
Fathers no longer place value on a potential suitor's honor and virtue and in consequence no longer elevate a young man's social status based on these traits.
It hardly matters if fathers do place value on the suitor's honor and virtue, because the decision is entirely out of his hands.
If his daughter chooses to "ruin herself" by rutting with a man devoid of honor and virtue, the father can't do a thing about it. He can't lock her up until she changes her mind; he can't horsewhip the punk to force him to stay away; he can't force them to the altar at shotgun-point; he can't do a thing about it if the punk abandons his "ruined" daughter after the marriage.
It is completely out of the father's hands, and more's the pity.
Oh wait, they haven't done squat or ever sided with a man over a woman, have they?
Or maybe they don't count because No True Woman would ever do such a thing.
No, "they don't count" because it didn't happen on TV. *shrug*
As soon as they get on the news shows instead of Gloria Allred...
Now that I think about it, I wonder if the art shift back during the Victorian era to represent angels as delicate women might have something to do with it.
Back in the day, angels were represented as mighty warriors or weird creatures that break your brain to look at.
Then there were the baby angels. *shudder*
The Second Great Awakening had a lot to do with it, too. There was a wave of anti-intellectualism, joined with a wave of emotionalism that swept through the church and the nation. Women were praised for being much more spiritual than men (because of their emotional reactions at revivals, etc.). They were also lifted by the Noble Savage thinkers who placed women closer to the Earth and its cycles. Sigh...
And yes, baby angels are weird. Makes a good exclamation, though.
"Sweet baby angels... what in the name of bitter red pills is going on in here???"
No, "they don't count" because it didn't happen on TV. *shrug*
As soon as they get on the news shows instead of Gloria Allred...
We control the horizontal, we control the vertical...
It is completely out of the father's hands, and more's the pity.
It is completely our of a father's hands who chooses defeat. It is out of the father's hands who pays for and encourages his daughter's pursuit of a career. Who pays for lavish weddings for his princess to marry the beau of her choosing.
It is not out of a father's hands who has accepted the red pill without bitterness and who chooses to order his home in a very purposeful manner. Understanding his daughters' nature and protecting them from it. There are so many examples of fathers like this who comment here alone. I refuse to believe Vox, Daniel, Josh, Vrydenker, Dalrock etc...(sorry guys there's too many of you to list) are raising up daughters (or plan to raise up daughters) who will chart their own course in life and contribute to the societal problem we face.
There are, unfortunately, several examples of fathers contributing to the problem as well. Those who tout the success of their little princesses in their careers. Paying exorbitant amounts of money to universities that inundate princess with feminist drivel.
But, at least you've just moved the goal posts of your defeatism and aren't clinging to your original assertion that women are different today than they were back...whenever.
It is completely out of the father's hands, and more's the pity.
The wife he chooses and how he raises his daughter is well within his hands. And there are certain things a father can do to scare a worthless suitor away... But it really comes back to how he raises his daughter.
Sensing a pattern here ...
D'oh.
@Sigyn - the "baby" angels represented Cherubim to show their "innocence". They are near the apex of the angelic hierarchy. The problem is not so much the cartoonish caricature of angels, but the lack of anything for the devils which are thoroughly dangerous.
But to continue, what happened with the men? The men coming home from WW2 all expected to become Fathers, heads of households, not merely husbands. The women, mothers. They were looking for DIFFERENT things. Fathers have to have the insouciance and leadership of an alpha combined with being a good provider that would make most of today's Betas seem indolent, and didn't have time for affairs. Mothers similarly had no time for worrying about other men, or watching any "Phil" on TV. Children were and are more selfish than both parents combined because they can't be any other way. There was little room in the home for the parent's egos.
Compare it with today where a couple gets married (before or after shacking up), then both have a long list of wants and children are scheduled several years out - usually controlled by the Woman's ticking clock and many find themselves infertile.
Focus on the Family should be renamed Focus on the Couple. Back in our Grandparent's days, Man and Woman were usually Mr. and Mrs., and Father and Mother. Women more spiritual? No. Mothers more spiritual? I'll leave the answer for the readers.
One of the reasons we don't have Fathers is because even in what we consider "christian" families, we instead have husbands with children. We still have the "quality time" but quantity time is more important - the 5 minute interruption anytime shows more concern than the scheduled hour.
A Jewish Rabbi pointed out that the words in Noah for his sons are different before and after the Ark is started. I forget the exact meanings, but the first is something like "Noah had offspring", the second is like "Noah was the Father to his Sons".
Women, christian and secular, even those who are trying to understand Game, have never and still aren't being told they should be looking for a Father for their children. They aren't thinking about children, they don't want children, at least not for the next decade (they think they can have them at 50). "But would he make a good father?" is a double dose red-pill that will kill the hamster and depolarize the categories of alpha and beta which is the root of the internal conflict.
Secular and Pagan men were always about sex. But if they aren't looking primarily for a woman to be a mother for their children, what are they looking for? Why get married? Just to have sex? How is that working out?
The Baby-Boomer "Me" generation has taught their children well. Lessons that will be hard to undo. But if at the core it is always about Me, what I want, how can any marriage last when you have no givers and all takers? The same way liberals seem to want jobs without employers, or to redistribute wealth but strangle the creation of wealth.
Sorry, Wendy. I wasn't going for a comprehensive list; I just grabbed hold of the first three names that occurred to me. I'd probably have got you and GAHCindy and some others.
Well, it's not like any women have done anything - something - in order to NOT be seen as parts of a faceless collective. As long as they keep circling the wagons around any woman who gets into any sort of conflict with any man for any reason, they don't really have grounds to complain about the AWALT argument.
Paging Stickwick, SarahsDaughter, and Sunshine Mary...
Oh wait, they haven't done squat or ever sided with a man over a woman, have they?
Or maybe they don't count because No True Woman would ever do such a thing.
This is a strawman fallacy. You can name women that can genuinely invoke NAWALT. great. It doesn't address the argument. Which, ironically, demonstrates the very principle Höllenhund is talking about - you percieve that women are under attack and summon other women to circle the wagons.
"Paging Stickwick, SarahsDaughter, and Sunshine Mary"
One of them deleted her blog, the other two are anonymously commenting on various blog. Big deal. How exactly does that count as women calling other women out on their behavior?
___
You just learned a fundamental principle regarding the nature of women! That is indeed what we do. We circle the wagons when one of our kind is under (or perceived to be under) attack. Whether we're roaring feminist pigs or traditional Christian wives in biblically submissive marriages.
This is exactly why all is not lost. Now granted, red pill ladies don't have a very large herd - though it is growing which is very encouraging. I'm not sure that we'll ever reach the numbers necessary to reverse suffrage - unfortunately, societal collapse has more momentum.
For Hollenhund to assert that no women have done anything is patently false. Unfortunately our voices aren't that loud and for the most part we are busy tending to our own families. Funny, though, that's where it must start.
Click on my name moron. My not anonymous blog (meaning open to my friends and family) calls out women on their behavior quite a bit. Beginning with my own damn self.
And yet, it is emotionally difficult, if not shattering, for many men to realize that their paragons of virtue are no more virtuous than they are, that said paragons may actually, in fact, be considerably less virtuous from the male perspective than the man himself is.
For me, the Red Pill wasn't so much a realization about the virtue of women, but rather a realization after my divorce several years ago about how much of of the message of the feminization of the culture I had unconsciously absorbed and how Beta I'd become over 18 years of marriage. The effect of the Red Pill was more a revelation about me and the lies that feminism had perpetrated on society and other men that led to a alternate combinations of despair and burning anger. If there was any hatred, it was toward feminism not specific women or women in general. But the sudden understanding that the latent Alpha characteristics I'd unknowingly had in my youth and early marriage had slowly leeched away was a lot to take.
It took a while to absorb and process, but the result has been as if awakening from a dream-state to a reality that is harsh, but still affords opportunities. Initially my thinking was that had these realizations come earlier, I might have been able to salvage my marriage. Now, several years into living a Red Pill reality, my thinking is I probably shouldn't have wanted to...
Yep. I wonder if Ray is going to chime in here with some more butt-hurtedness?
like "Alpha" men who write articles pointing out the bitterness of other guys, compared to their own cool superiority?
LOL!
you sound skeered (and should be) not to mention fixated on my butt, not to mention enraged that i dared disagree with your hero (whose butt, doubtless, you are likewise interested in)
mebbe just fixate on climbing on one butt at at time there, Jclimber
This is a strawman fallacy. You can name women that can genuinely invoke NAWALT. great. It doesn't address the argument.
Ironic is the fact that you quoted the exact bit of Hollenhund's post that I was addressing:
Well, it's not like any women have done anything - something - in order to NOT be seen as parts of a faceless collective.
Italicized emphasis mine. I point out that he is wrong--that there are, in fact, women who are doing SOMETHING, evidence that he can see with his own eyes.
Which, ironically, demonstrates the very principle Höllenhund is talking about - you percieve that women are under attack and summon other women to circle the wagons.
Nope. I perceive that he is demonstrably wrong, and I correct him and invite other women to speak out for themselves instead of me speaking for them.
If you want to "keep circling the wagons around any man who gets into any sort of conflict with any woman for any reason," you are free to do so. Just realize that you're doing exactly what you call out women for doing.
One of them deleted her blog, the other two are anonymously commenting on various blog. Big deal. How exactly does that count as women calling other women out on their behavior?
I knew somehow you'd come up with an excuse to discount them. "Anything" isn't really "anything"; it's a category of behavior you and you alone get to define as narrowly as suits you. Good job.
SSM, if I remember rightly, only deleted her blog temporarily because her husband's identity was disclosed by a troll. She did not do so because she changed her mind about calling women out. She mentioned she has plans to start it back up at some point, depending on what HER HUSBAND decides to do.
She puts her husband before herself! She obeys him! What a feminist bitch, huh?
Stickwick can speak for herself about her bona fides if she feels it's worth her while to bother with you. I'm not making that decision for her.
You, meanwhile, are free to go on commenting anonymously at other people's blogs. I'm sure your wagon-circling for All Men Everywhere will be as useful and informative as the women's.
"One must forgive them, even as one learns to completely ignore their advice, because they quite literally do not know what they are doing."
Much the same I'd imagine as the king at the end of the via crucis.
Much the same I'd imagine as the king at the end of the via crucis.
That's a good point. I guess folks shouldn't be annoyed or contemptuous of the bitter ones; forgiveness of ignorant wrongdoers is something so big even God wasn't prepared to do it without a sacrificial Lamb.
((Must discuss with my man.))
The Little Prince's discussion with the king is fitting here:
"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"
"You," said the little prince firmly.
"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform..."
Getting angry at women (or those denuded betas) is like getting angry at a bird for flying or a fish for swimming. They naturally do what they were born to do. Pity them on the way to understanding them perhaps, but getting angry with them is rather silly.
LostSailor: The effect of the Red Pill was more a revelation about me and the lies that feminism had perpetrated on society and other men that led to a alternate combinations of despair and burning anger. If there was any hatred, it was toward feminism not specific women or women in general. But the sudden understanding that the latent Alpha characteristics I'd unknowingly had in my youth and early marriage had slowly leeched away was a lot to take.
This is key. If it helps to generalize to "all women/all men," do so, yet each of us must be accountable in the end for our own actions. As I posted earlier, we each tend to find our own equal/match in some way; hence, we're usually not just unwitting victims of other's bad character. Further, scripture doesn't suggest we're held accountable to standards based on our sex organs. If, however, positive motivation is gained by generalizing the observable by virtue of sex-parts, so be it. Some of my female/emotional, old-person frustrated reaction to Game (I blathered on one very bad day as "Disillusioned"), is - it really doesn't freaking matter which sex-organ you possess, you still have to own your own shit and learn from your own mistakes and apply honorable/workable solutions to your situation to stop doing harm.
If men collectively believed "somehow" there was an advantage in "empowering" women (via the vote, birth control, abortion, financial access), then "men collectively" share some burden in the shit feminism has wrought - ESPECIALLY if they had the majority means to power and onus by virtue of rational minds to protect the "weaker sex." Someone fucked-up royally: men and women together.
Alpha Game - at its best - calls men to be alphas. We women need to speak the truth, as well. And all of us, male and female, need to take responsibility for our part in the decline/Fall. Otherwise, we risk repeating the same mistakes.
Stickwick can speak for herself about her bona fides if she feels it's worth her while to bother with you. I'm not making that decision for her.
Meh, the truth is I'm actually a raging feminist. The last few years have been a combination of field research and performance art. I'm like Margaret Mead crossed with Andy Kaufman. AWALT! Tenk yu veddy much!
Exactly true, Ioweenie! I'd only clarify that third paragraph, for my part: Collective blame is a silly thing to do, because there are way too many categories to which you belong so that someone can blame you. Ask any straight white middle-class Christian, much less the male ones.
It was because I came looking for His Lordship to pass him a message at VP that I encountered the Red Pill myself. And like an adult, I took responsibility and examined everything I thought and felt and did in that light. I came up feeling awful and stupid and deceived.
I'm still recovering from the Blue Pill. I already knew I was broken--you know, fallen and all that--but I literally didn't see the ways I could be irrational and wrong-headed and what was lies and what was truth. I'm sure I still don't see all of the picture, but it's coming into focus.
Meh, the truth is I'm actually a raging feminist. The last few years have been a combination of field research and performance art. I'm like Margaret Mead crossed with Andy Kaufman. AWALT! Tenk yu veddy much!
That's it. Turn in your Secret Feminist Agent decoder ring and tie tack NOW.
...Um, I mean...You evil science lady person! How dare you!
Thanks for the linkage and the kind words.
That's it. Turn in your Secret Feminist Agent decoder ring and tie tack NOW.
Only problem is, I think I've gone native. Hmm, we were warned about this back in Critical Theory Spy School.
Only problem is, I think I've gone native.
Quick, say ten Hail Bettys and six Our Gaias!
Pull up, PULL UP!!!
You, meanwhile, are free to go on commenting anonymously at other people's blogs. I'm sure your wagon-circling for All Men Everywhere will be as useful and informative as the women's.
"circling the wagons" -- he nailed you, missy
yes, Sigyn, he's just the bitter, totalitarian "mirror image of feminism"
thats the latest brand of snake-oil from those angling to maintain the Fempire status-quo
See? See!? There are already 38 Bitter Men on the planet, all this is exactly like feminism, why cant we just hug each other and forget this silly nonsense about males having any rights?
how magnanimous of you to extend your Womanly Permission for him to comment on other blogs! surely, sister, you have grown generous and grand before the sight of the Lord! who knows what other concessions to that lowly male's existence you might be willing to make?
it's inspiring. really
ray, you hush or I'll summon the Super Secret Sisterhood Squad to confiscate all your tinfoil--after which, not even your ability to totally miss the point will save you from our Emasculating Lasers!
"not even your ability to totally miss the point will save you from our Emasculating Lasers!"
I think the lasers may be sorely disappointed.
Sensing a pattern here ...
Which is really quite funny, since you are all obviously much more M ...
The Little Prince's discussion with the king is fitting here:
No it isn't. Women, and Betas, are capable of better than they usually do these days. That any one of us is prone to temptations of one form or another is not an excuse for indulging in them, for allowing ourselves to be ruled by our weaknesses.
A grown woman can be a decent, honorable person. But it requires that the little girl was held to standards.
Oh, so Sarah's Daughter is blogging under her real name? You mean that's her REAL name? Haha LOL. Oh, and I forgot to mention that it's open to "friends and family". Man, it must take balls of steel to run a blog like that.
You tradcon women aren't fooling me with your nonsense.
Nothing funnier than a whining not-so-much-a-man complaining about his lot in life and not willing to change one thing in his own thinking. I'm thinking the whining betas are actually Calvinists. "The world is soooo bad. I can't possibly do anything myself to fix things. Woe is me!" The lack of responsibility taking is staggering.
"The Little Prince's discussion with the king is fitting here:"
Actually, I'd think the Nuremberg defense. Just a matter of following the trail in the other direction; upwards instead of down.
Oh, so Sarah's Daughter is blogging under her real name? You mean that's her REAL name? Haha LOL. Oh, and I forgot to mention that it's open to "friends and family". Man, it must take balls of steel to run a blog like that.
It's easier to move the goalposts and bitch about how nobody ever reaches them, than to actually click on a name to go to a blog and look at it.
But then again, you're under the impression that women have balls, so I guess we should have expected you to be ridiculous about other things, too.
Stop with the snark. I clicked on her name and took a look at her blog. I didn't learn what her real name is.
Anonymous blogging doesn't count as "women calling other women out on their behavior". Simple as that.
Who said women have balls? What's this nonsense? My point is exactly that women have no balls, so to speak.
Stop with the snark.
*considers* No.
Anonymous blogging doesn't count as "women calling other women out on their behavior". Simple as that.
Why not?
My point is exactly that women have no balls, so to speak.
Then we can assume that anyone who "comments anonymously at other people's blogs" has no balls, Mr. "Hollenhund"?
"After all, if it is difficult for a man to accept the observable reality of female lack of virtue with equanimity, how much harder, how much more shattering must it be, for a woman to do the same?"
By this do you mean a woman accepting that she is not virtuous? Very unpleasant, indeed. Accepting men's lack of virtue is also unpleasant. The purpose of marriage is to hinder a woman's hypergamy and protect her from her own instincts as much as it is to preserve her honor for her husband's inspiration, etc. Men and women will forever be at a stalemate until the leap of faith in the form of committment is made. It is the only thing that saves both parties.
I'm really not understanding how using my real name would make a bit of difference regarding what I write. And am very amused Hollenhund has made this an issue on a blog written by a "Vox Day" who is married to a "Spacebunny." Who, both, by the way do know my real name as well as do some of the regular commenters here. See Hollenhund I have no problem with sharing my personal life with people who are provably not freaks. You however, sir, do not qualify.
"I'm really not understanding how using my real name would make a bit of difference regarding what I write."
Because shaming women and calling them out on their behavior are only effective if done openly, which means you'd have to risk excommunication from the female herd by other women and their white knights. This is why women are very reluctant to get into any sort of conflict with each other. Nobody wants to rock the boat.
"See Hollenhund I have no problem with sharing my personal life with people who are provably not freaks."
Is that supposed to be impressive somehow? Because it isn't. Yeah, you're willing to give out personal information with people that you already agree with and trust. Boo-hoo. If you actually shamed other women around you and called them out on their bad behavior, you'd have to meet freaks face to face. But you'll never do that, of course.
You and Sigyn either have reading comprehension problems or are simply more interested in self-aggrandizing snark instead of real discussion. Either way you're typical insufferable tradcon broads, and there are already more than enough of you around. I've already made my point absolutely clear. You can either accept it or not.
Because shaming women and calling them out on their behavior are only effective if done openly,
Sorry, I think you know less about women and the Hamster than you believe you do.
You know, the funny thing is that Hollenhund is doing exactly what Vox describes:
He himself hunkers behind Internet anonymity and takes potshots at All Women Everywhere, safe from consequences to himself. Then he complains when some anti-feminist women use a screen of anonymity to protect their families from backlash and decline to immolate their husbands and themselves on the field of a crusade he's not willing to fight himself.
Hollenhund expects women to have more courage (i.e. more virtue) than he has, and is outraged because we do not measure up to this standard. QED.
(Which standard is ridiculous anyway, seeing as sharing one's real name gives no more weight to anything that one says if the listener is unwilling to listen.)
Either way you're typical insufferable tradcon broads, and there are already more than enough of you around.
According to your "logic", the fact that you're using a pseudonym means I can't "hear" you.
Hollenhund, it seems you are the one with the reading comprehension problem or you've just been too lazy to look into that which you are accusing. My blog is open to my family and friends, I link it on my personal facebook account. And, they read it. My daughters read it, my sister-in-law reads it and shares it with my husband's parents. My step mother reads it and bitches about me to my father.
I know of no more important herd than the women of my extended family. And, they all know very well where I stand. Some have banished me from the herd. Some have embraced what I say. Some refuse to read it. Of my friends that have ventured over to read it, a handful decided to banish me as well. Within two weeks of blogging, I was having very intense conversations with a friend of over 25 years about biblical vs. mutual submission on the blog, and she attempted to bring in reinforcements. Many thanks to Vox for linking that conversation as the wisdom from the ilk made quite an impression on that friend.
SD, just to be sure, for my own sake:
What you mean is that your blog is completely public, and you specifically announce to your family and friends that it is yours, so to them and some others you are not anonymous?
In other words, you're non-anonymous precisely where HH insists you should be?
Yes, that is correct. All of my friends and family know that I write as SarahsDaughter and my husband as RedLegBen. The blog is completely public. The commenters are a mix of strangers and personal friends.
I started the blog assuming the readers would be just family and friends and averaged 50-100 readers per post. Until Vox linked it and several hundred of his readers stopped by.
Yeah, you're willing to give out personal information with people that you already agree with and trust. Boo-hoo. If you actually shamed other women around you and called them out on their bad behavior, you'd have to meet freaks face to face.
I'm not attempting to speak for SarahsDaughter, but the women around me know where I stand based on my example. And many probably do feel shamed given their reaction to some of my choices. For example, many take offense that I have chosen homeschooling my children over career opportunities. I have had women actually express their anger at me over this.
Writing a blog and being with people face to face are two very different things that require two very different approaches. One is about ideas while the other is about personal relationships - relationships that might include mentoring and example.
As a blog reader who doesn't personally know the blog writer, what purpose could you have in knowing her name. How would this provide you more useful information within the scope of her blog?
@loweenie: , then "men collectively" share some burden in the shit feminism has wrought...Someone fucked-up royally: men and women together.
Yes, men collectively bear a large share of the blame for the ravages of feminism. Feminism can succeed only to the extent that men allow it. It's never been about equal rights, it's about forcing equal outcomes. I recently read an article about feminism in the UK where women were demanding that they be given more seat on corporate boards to equalize the "imbalance" of male domination at the top of most corporations. Not that women should earn those seat, just that they should be "given" them.
Women, of course, also share the blame for being unable to recognize the harms feminism inflict on society. There's an easy--and often amusing--exercise I do when the opportunity arises. Ask a woman (especially if she's a professed feminist) to "name at least one unintended harmful consequence on society caused by feminism." Most often they will just state back at you with an expression of utter incomprehension; you must resist the urge to laugh or even smirk. Then either they sputter about trying to get their heads around the concept that feminism could ever perpetrate a harm or their heads explode and they go off on a tear. When they calm down (if they calm down), I'll offer the example of middle class wage stagnation. If the opportunity appears, I'll segue into the so-called "wage gap" and ask what the preferred feminist solution should be. Invariably it is "raise women's wage/salary to match men's." They simply can't conceive that the outcome of their demand would be to lower men's wage/salary to match women's, though that would be the logical economic option. Good fun.
I'm late to the discussion on this, but here's my two cents: We've been lied to by love songs, TV, chick flicks, so-called family ministries and a host of others. It is what it is - get over it. Firefly isn't coming back to Fox, there is no Great Pumpkin and no one except Jehovah God will ever love you unconditionally, I don't care what she says.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=R_saheuIIjQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DR_saheuIIjQ
And even God desires you to change and be conformed to the likeness of Christ. So accept reality, grow up and do something with what you've learned. Does it hurt? Yes, but you can't wallow in it forever and prosper.
Ask a woman (especially if she's a professed feminist) to "name at least one unintended harmful consequence on society caused by feminism." Most often they will just state back at you with an expression of utter incomprehension...
Well, you'd get that reaction from me because I think most of the consequences were intentional, but I acknowledge I'm weird. *laugh*
I'm thinking the whining betas are actually Calvinists
They may or may not be Calvinists, but they are most definitely not Betas. The whining comes from Gammas. Gammas are men who adopt female modes of thinking. They prefer commiserating in their misery to taking steps to improve their lot in life.
Clarity need not be bitter, but clearly these gammas want it no other way.
If you are going to argue with gammas, my advice is to stop arguing with them as you might a man, but rather argue the way you would with a woman. You will have better success.
Firefly isn't coming back to Fox
That was unnecessarily cruel.
"All of my friends and family know that I write as SarahsDaughter and my husband as RedLegBen. The blog is completely public."
That doesn't matter. The point is that you aren't blogging under your own name, period. You avoid negative consequences of your written word by cloaking yourself in anonymity.
Susan Walsh may be an insufferable twat, but at least she's blogging under her real name and occasionally attacks rabid feminists.
"He himself hunkers behind Internet anonymity and takes potshots at All Women Everywhere, safe from consequences to himself. Then he complains when some anti-feminist women use a screen of anonymity to protect their families from backlash and decline to immolate their husbands and themselves on the field of a crusade he's not willing to fight himself."
I don't complain - I could care less about you tradcons. Whether you succeed in what you're trying to accomplish or not, whatever it may be, is none of my business. I merely point certain things out. One of these is the obvious truth that you can't call women out on their bad behavior by blogging anonymously. It just doesn't work. That's no way to shame them.
Yeah, I anonymously take potshots at women. So what? It's not my job to shame women or to call them out on their behavior. I don't care about their fate anyway, and it's not like men can shame women into anything. You know that well. I visit Manosphere blogs in order to discuss stuff with other men - trying to have rational discussions with women about these issues would be utterly pointless. Women's brains and psyche aren't suited for that. I don't get into arguments with women either online or offline - it'd be a waste of time. I take potshots at women online because it's fun. That's it.
The point is that you aren't blogging under your own name, period. You avoid negative consequences of your written word by cloaking yourself in anonymity.
The Hamster is strong with this one.
Susan Walsh may be an insufferable twat, but at least she's blogging under her real name and occasionally attacks rabid feminists.
So at least one woman has done anything - something - in order to NOT be seen as part of a faceless collective.
*pauses and waits for HH to come up with a new reason why this doesn't count*
Will you define what you mean by tradcon?
Also, I have discussed with my husband using our names. He's said no. So, if that makes it so women can not read and truly grasp the message I'm putting out there, there's not much I can do about it. His opinion is quite the opposite, however. He believes that associating my message with very easy to locate pictures of me would obscure the message. So while he approved of putting a video on the blog that has him in it from years ago, he will not approve any picture or video with me in it.
Guess what, Sigyn, it indeed doesn't count, because she's just another servant of the Feminine Imperative. But that doesn't mean she doesn't face possible negative consequences when openly criticizing feminists.
I won't waste time on this nonsense, SarahsDaughter. You know perfectly well what a tradcon is. I won't have to explain it to you. And I'm done with this crap discussion.
I don't complain - I could care less about you tradcons.
That would hurt if I were a tradcon. I know it would, because you inspire such affection and interest in people.
Whether you succeed in what you're trying to accomplish or not, whatever it may be, is none of my business.
Well, as for me, I'm helping my husband try to take over the world. It's kind of a long-term goal for him. I don't know what you were thinking I was up to.
One of these is the obvious truth that you can't call women out on their bad behavior by blogging anonymously. It just doesn't work. That's no way to shame them.
I'm still fuzzy on the details of how announcing one's real identity makes a lick of difference in whether the Hamster will respond to words read on the Internet.
Yeah, I anonymously take potshots at women. So what? It's not my job to shame women or to call them out on their behavior.
Oh, right. Being cannon fodder is for everyone else.
I don't care about their fate anyway, and it's not like men can shame women into anything. You know that well.
Then maybe Jesus should've come as a woman.
Wait.
I visit Manosphere blogs in order to discuss stuff with other men - trying to have rational discussions with women about these issues would be utterly pointless.
You have an interesting definition of "rational" there, if I can judge by how you've been behaving in just this conversation.
Women's brains and psyche aren't suited for that. I don't get into arguments with women either online or offline - it'd be a waste of time. I take potshots at women online because it's fun. That's it.
And now the "Obviously you don't understand me because you are too stupid/illogical/not-me to do so" fighting withdrawal. Congratulations; your hamsterization is complete.
Enjoy the pity party, bud. You've got enough songs and dances to guarantee it'll never end.
Guess what, Sigyn, it indeed doesn't count, because she's just another servant of the Feminine Imperative.
Goalpost: Moved.
Prediction: Fulfilled.
Am I good or what?: Hell yes.
I'm not reading your nonsense, Sigyn. I couldn't care less. Go and bake cookies with other tradcon broads or something.
And I'm done with this crap discussion.
How very female of you.
Shove your shaming language up where the sun don't shine, brave tradcon "blogress".
In cyberspace, everybody can hear your hamster scream.
Vox must be so disappointed to learn that he has written nothing about economics since he penned "Return of the Great Depression" under a name not his own (ish).
...and it's not like men can shame women into anything.
Gamma wimps sure can't, that part is true.
But, ah, how to put this... not all men are like that?
I don't get into arguments with women either online or offline - it'd be a waste of time.
Several comments in a contentious back-and-forth with women on a blog is a curious way not to argue with women online.
Since HH is apparently done, can anyone else explain what "tradcon" means? I've never heard that term before this non-argument, and Google is no help.
Stickwick,
It means traditional conservative. I've read in the 'sphere that these women play the part of dutiful housewife while simultaneously disrespecting their husbands. The complaint is that these women will treat their husbands like children and just give them treats (sex) because it is there duty and for no other reason. Also, they are referred to kept women who use their men as slaves for their own stay at home lifestyle.
While I have no doubt that this is true in some/many instances, most women who stay at home are called tradcons by some of the men who frequent the blogs no matter their relationship with their husbands.
While I have no doubt that this is true in some/many instances, most women who stay at home are called tradcons by some of the men who frequent the blogs no matter their relationship with their husbands.
If that's the case, then the term effectively has no meaning. Thanks for the explanation, Stingray.
Yikes, Stingray, and I thought I was dealing with moving goalposts here!
No matter what one says to these men, it is wrong. The wife can be submissive, completely take care of her husband, give him true respect, regular sex, etc and she will be called out for something.
Stickwick is right, the term has little meaning as there literally are no goal posts to be moved. It's just a huge wide open space.
Thank you Stingray. That might have described me four years ago when I think of the women I know today who fit the description. They too are in rebellion against God's commands in marriage regarding submission and respect. It would take some discernment to judge whether a woman is or is not a tradcon. There are key words I hear women say that clue me in to their situation. "I expect my husband to..." for example.
What I've found most interesting in this exchange we've had with a gamma is that it appears the red pill gamma believes women should submit to all men. And not disagree (any derision is called shaming language). It's not logical, of course, if said gamma were married, he would not want his wife to submit to anyone other than him, as is proper. What is evident is that, like most women, they have no ability to retract and admit when they've been wrong.
The manner of this blog is to respond in kind. Contempt is met with contempt. Respect with respect. As Vox has explained before, it's a very egalitarian format. However when we, as women, have a disagreement with a gamma (rabbit), he escalates and moves goal posts. Any other man who would agree with the woman or call out the gamma's rabbitiness is called a white knight and should any other woman opine, it is dismissed as circling the wagons.
As a woman who has come to know her own nature and makes a conscientious effort to have rational discourse, it is refreshing to be able to talk with rational men. A rational man would take my question "what is the definition of tradcon" at face value and answer the question. It is some kind of somethin else when the man you are talking to responds as this one has.
SD, Stingray, Sigyn (BTW, is a requirement for women to have a commenting name that starts with S? Spacebunny's rule perhaps?),
I do hope your excursion into arguing with a gamma gives you some empathy for what us men have to put up with when arguing with the distaff side of the ledger...
Absolutely, Jack. But remember, we have to deal with them too. (Bangs head on wall).
I do hope your excursion into arguing with a gamma gives you some empathy for what us men have to put up with when arguing with the distaff side of the ledger...
And not just that, but an education on when to stop taking the opponent seriously to maximize the spectacle of their public breakdown.
Now I know why my husband enjoys troll-rolling so much. It's like raw power!
You can keep gossiping all day, it doesn't matter. The men here have understood what I wrote - that's what matters.
Another Gamma move!
"I'm leaving and I don't care what you say! You're all dumb!"
Hours later:
"Stop talking about me! Everyone knows I won!"
Jack,
Yep.
The men here have understood what I wrote - that's what matters.
I think you are a bitter and pathetic gamma.
To the inevitable charge of white-knighting: You tried to speak for "the men here". I would have remained silent otherwise.
White knights don't count as men.
I'm another man saying you are a bitter and pathetic gamma. There's two. I do understand what you wrote. It's sad and pathetic. Plus you got beat up by girls, also sad and pathetic.
Oh indeed the men here have understood what Hollerin' Hound wrote. Just like we understand what some whinny feminist solipsist writes when she drops in to snowflake. What he wrote, for those, ah, non-men, who may not have understood it (like ol' HH himself ironically) was...
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!! I want my mommieeeeeee!
Well played, Pet. You are learning.
It's been a pleasure watching the S-team wipe the floor with Hoellenhund. But before y'all go away laughing at the unworthy excrementstirring messenger, I suggest thinking more carefully about one little part of the message.
Does "call[ing] [someone] out" naturally include anonymous criticism? Well, um, conceivably maybe. After all to "call out" here is a metaphorical cliche, not a technical term with a standard precise definition. But overtness is central to the literal nonmetaphorical meaning, as a formal challenge to a duel. So really, as unreasonable though Hoellenhund has been in general, his statement "anonymous blogging doesn't count as 'women calling other women out on their behavior'" seems pretty reasonable to me. Given that it's metaphorical usage, there is some potential for misunderstanding (and the potential grows when followed by "simple as that," and grows further when followed by refusal to answer Sigyn's "why not?"). But I think as it stands it's reasonable, and further that it's an important distinction. (Note that SarahsDaughter ("not understanding") and freeonus ("within the scope of her blog") seem to argue that it's not an important distinction.)
Note that I'm not trying to argue that you have a responsibility to criticize openly. (And it's bitterly amusing that it was an anonymous out-of-his-depth commenter who chose openness of criticism as a distinction to dig in and die on.) I'm just arguing the distinction can make a big difference, and it's a mistake to ignore the practical difference between anonymous criticism and open criticism. Especially open criticism from people who are perceived as admirable, or prestigious, or merely successful or powerful or secure. Hoellenhund chooses an absurd overstatement that's easy to refute, "shaming women and calling them out on their behavior are only effective if done openly." ("Only," yeah, right.) But a less strawmanlike version (e.g. "tend to be considerably more effective if done openly") is not just true but important.
Also note I'm not claiming you shouldn't have kept hammering on how criticizing anonymously is indeed "do[ing] something - anything." Hoellenhund seems never to have retracted his absurd easy-to-refute "something - anything" claim. Therefore it's natural to beat him up for that instead of letting him move the goalposts without acknowledging his initial, um, certainly honest mistake.
And I've already gone on longer than seems customary here, so regarding "not understanding how using my real name would make a bit of difference regarding what I write" I will only suggest thinking a bit harder. And regarding "How would this provide you more useful information within the scope of her blog?" Why is that a relevant question? Have you ever read the blurbs on the back of books? How many are anonymous? Is there an important real-world pragmatic reason that the publishers choose nonanonymous ones? Does that pragmatic reason fall inside or outside your arbitrarily narrow category of "useful information"? What does that tell you about whether that choice of category is suitable?
I don't think many here would disagree either with that women have a strong tendency towards cowardice, nor that criticizing with your own name carries more weight than doing it in such a way that the target doesn't know your name. (Mine is Markku Koponen, by the way. Let's hear his, if he is so brave.)
All this was only due to the fact that:
a) Heckpuppy explicitly made it about each and every woman, not just women in general. In other words, he created the unique circumstances when it isn't snowflaking to do what S-team did.
b) He then tried to speak for the men here, creating the unique circumstances where remaining silent WOULD imply consent.
Where did I "speak for the men here"? Please explain. That's not what I said. But this thread has proven my point anyway. There is exactly one commenter here who understood my point and realized that it's reasonable. And, of course, he's a man.
I found this comment over at Dalrocks. How relevant to the discussion here and...interesting:
Höllenhund says:
April 6, 2013 at 12:21 pm
With respect to anonymous Manosphere bloggers, there are a number of simple factors in effect.
If you bother to read that HUS post and the comments, you’ll see that Game and its mainstream image isn’t the issue really discussed there. Walsh is merely using that TV segment as an excuse to declare that nobody should able to spread „misogyny” online anonymously. Nothing more, nothing less. She doesn’t say, of course, that misogynists should be silenced and censored. What she does say is that they should be able to say what they want, but only if they suffer all and any social/economic repercussions that result.
This, of course, is nothing new. Some of you may probably recall that Denise Romano, a prominent feminist charlatan, has also made it a talking point of hers that she’s writing under her real name whereas her „cowardly” opponents are anonymous. But it’s not even her that this whole idea originates from. It originates from feminists in general, who are just one interest group that advocates the legal curtailment and even banning of online anonymity. That’s the real issue. There have been many news stories about such laws passed in South Korea, for example, and pushed in some federal states of the USA. It’s happening slowly but surely.
The days of online anonymity are numbered, because its enemies are numerous and influential: feminists, the record industry, other lobby groups against online piracy and so on. And you can now see that Walsh is pretty much siding with them because…well, in case you didn’t notice it already, she craves mainstram acceptance – not merely mainstream exposure, mind you, but *acceptance* – and all the goodies it brings: fame, book deals, invitations to popular TV and radio shows, you name it. She fancies herself as some relationship advice guru and she knows she won’t become one unless she’s co-opted by those who control mainstream discourse, unless she does everything to lure in as many female readers as possible.
And the easiest way to do that is to start feuds with the Manosphere again and again. It also enables her to get rid of her competitors. You remember that Lady Raine outed Roissy with the help of Denise Romano, do you? Walsh surely does. That’s why she’s now encouraging her female readers, most of whom are miserable, bitter losers just like Lady Raine, to track down and out Rollo, Dalrock and all other „misogynist” bloggers they can find.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/how-we-came-to-embrace-illegitimacy/comment-page-2/#comment-78040
@SD:
My mom had a major falling out with her mom, after which she just COULD NOT STAND Grandma. To some extent, it was understandable--Grandma had lied to my mom and conned her out of some money--but the righteous anger settled into a snipey bitterness that was painful to watch.
For instance, Mom would fix supper, and Grandma, as part of the household, partook. If Grandma thanked her and complimented her, Mom would snap, "I didn't make it for YOU!" If Grandma said nothing, Mom would wait until she left the room and then huff, "It's like she thinks I OWE her, like I'm her slave or something!"
If Grandma helped clean, she was "an interfering old biddy who does everything wrong"--and believe me, Mom would find SOMETHING wrong with what she did, no matter how tiny. If she didn't help clean, she was "a lazy-ass bitch who leeches off the family."
No matter what Grandma did, it was the wrong thing--not because she was wrong, but because she was Grandma. Grandma is always wrong and bad.
I had this in mind during the "discussion" above. If I was right--and I think I was--then it didn't matter what we said or proved; we were wrong because we're collectively Grandma, and Grandma is always wrong and bad.
It's painful to watch, but maybe others can learn, like I did.
" how much harder, how much more shattering must it be, for a woman to do the same? "
Show me one that has, so that I can try to find out.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.