love as a game – lurking in manosphere
The closer you follow the letter of these commandments, the easier you will find and keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life. (The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon)
These ‘commandments’ are designed to help romantically unsuccessful, heterosexual men improve their chances of finding sexual partners and/or love. They include helpful hints such as “be irrationally self-confident”, “ignore her beauty” and “make her jealous”.
They come from the Manosphere.
For anyone unfamiliar with the term ‘manosphere’, Wikipedia tells us it is “a loose and informal network of blogs, websites, and internet commentators that focus on issues relating to men and masculinity, often in opposition to feminism or as a male counterpart to it.” If you care to delve into this curious subculture, you’ll find it riddled with bitter and often furious men, discussing methods of manipulating women, and using a bespoke set of linguistic tools to describe their understanding of life, requiring its own glossary. Here are a couple of examples:
Average frustrated chump (AFC): An average frustrated chump is a beta, incel, nice guy, or any other male who should be getting sex but isn’t, because feminists has destroyed females.
Blue pill: A blue pill is a person who hasn’t woken up to the fact that society discriminates against males, not females; to blue pill is to do the same. The term is a reference to The Matrix, in which taking the blue pill means remaining part of the sheeple and believing nothing is wrong, while taking the red pill means waking up.
On the few occasions when I’ve gone lurking into manosphere, I’ve not stayed long, finding the posts and comments rather tedious and unintelligent. But there is something about some of the strategies or techniques suggested that I find interesting. Because there is sometimes a surprising, although misleading, element of truth.
Whether it’s because of our cultural programming about love, or our animal instincts to breed, or indeed a combination of the two, I can imagine that some of the advice given could generate a certain kind of ‘success’ for guys who have been unfortunate enough to suffer years of rejection and disappointment in love.
But the question is whether the form of success this kind of game-playing brings is likely to make anyone’s life better. And I suspect the answer is no.
Any relationships built on the ’16 commandments’ in the post linked to above are based on cynical play-acting, manipulation and the exploitation of insecurity. I don’t believe there’s any such thing as ‘true unconditional love and happiness’, but there are basic positive and loving relationships to aim for, built on genuine attraction, mutual trust and respect. I shudder to think how awful it must be to be in a relationship formed on the basis of jealousy, insecurity and manipulation. Or is any sex better than no sex?
Well said, Violet. An interesting and diverse bunch, aren’t they? Also, most of them are rather sad and lost.
“I don’t believe there’s any such thing as ‘true unconditional love and happiness..”
I know, right? You and many of the ‘spherians seem to believe true love comes in a spray bottle of oxytocin.
I’m laughing here, but I think you’ve just explained why pooners and players have never impressed me, “..cynical play-acting, manipulation and the exploitation of insecurity…” My cynicism is already way beyond theirs and my insecurities are few.
LikeLike
Hi Insanity, I haven’t lurked for long enough to see anything interesting or diverse about them. I agree it’s all kind of sad though, and I don’t share the total disdain that others have expressed here, although that was my initial response. I know a few guys who veered off in a similar direction after years of bitterness about girls showing no interest. I appreciate the time you put in with them and your attempts to help them see something positive about women and relationships.
LikeLike
Hey crazy Disney princess lady- you wanna pair up? VW says you go after this garbage. What if we did it as a team? Might be fun… and actually constructive!!!
LikeLike
It has to be asked, IB – if you are so secure, why do you need an imaginary friend? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose it also has to be asked, if you are so secure in your own non belief, why does it matter to you what other people believe?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I spent a few weeks lurking on Red Pill blogs but couldn’t bring myself to write about it. Yuck.
To their minds the question isn’t any sex or no sex, but a lifestyle that gratifies male lust and vanity or denigrates it. The goal for most of them is not “a relationship” – though their are a handful of”Christian Red-Pill” bloggers who idealize marriage – but sex without reproduction. I don’t get that part, because they often claim their behavior is based in evolutionary biology. Avoiding reproduction misses the point of evolution entirely.
The philosophy is that modern women don’t really want marriage and children – whatever they say they behave for all the world as if the don’t, so we will manipulate them the way they do us.
I think this is a growing movement that will eventually mainstream. Old sex roles have broken down, men and women both seem to be tired, aimless and joyless. Much of popular – as opposed to radical – feminism seems to presume males behaving chivalrously, when in fact they don’t have to.
That having been said there are positive aspects, namely an insistence on self improvement: read books, lift weights, learn skills, earn money, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a bit grim. The only people who are attracted to it are those who can’t form successful relationships for whatever reason. I don’t think it will ‘go mainstream’, it’s too foul to be picked up by people living ‘normal’ lives i.e. the majority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the attraction is more the claim to be able to see things as they really are underneath the superstructure. It is the same appeal Marxism used to have.
Red Pill claims that underneath all the talk of equality and feminism or Christian chastity, women, no matter what they say, want nothing more than to have sex with manipulate assholes, which they prove it by their behavior, so men should wake up and act accordingly.
A growing parallel that overlaps the Red Pill crowd might be the race realists who subscribe to the following: while there are exceptions, blacks on average have an IQ of 85, whites on average an IQ of 100. IQ is 80% genetic. So it is foolish to think that aside from a few exceptions blacks will ever be anything but backwards, violent and poor, and civil rights projects are a waste of time.
Why, you yourself belong to a similar group. You claim to be able to see through the claims of religion – which are nothing more than indoctrination -to the hard gritty truths underneath. So you also claim to have taken a Red Pill, as it were, so you should be able to see the appeal.
Actually, there is quite a bit of overlap between atheism and Red Pill. I recall reading a Reddit thread on whether or not Red Pill is inherently atheist. Some commentators said it was, but there were some “Christian Red Pill” types who said there could be a Christian version of it. Finally one of the alpha gurus said Red Pill is about self improvement and anyone can use the tactics for whatever ends they see fit, which seemed to end the discussion, though it should’t have, because the tactics you can use to achieve your goals are determined by your goals, which are different for a believer and an unbeliever.
Anyway, there are a lot of unhappy people out there. It goes beyond questions of sex, it is a question of direction and meaning and they have none.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I think the attraction is more the claim to be able to see things as they really are underneath the superstructure.”
Of course. But you could only be tempted to see things like that if you’re not in what is considered a ‘normal’ loving relationship. I seem to remember you dodging questions about whether you’re married, am I right? Perhaps you see the attraction and imagine it might go mainstream because you have weary rejection and loneliness in your life.
I empathise with it because I know guys who felt something similar when they were rejected and lonely for year after year. And now that I think about it, when I was single for a period in my early 20s I pretty much had the same kind of blind disdain for all men – I wished I could find women attractive because the prospect of a relationship with such a limited creature as a man was depressing. In spite of the chemical hit.
It’s a good comparison with race realism. Take some semi-truths that don’t matter in the bigger picture, disassociate them with their origins, and twist your new misleading ‘facts’ to feel superior to other groups of people.
LikeLike
You love psychoanalyzing people don’t you. I’m single, though not lonely – you asked me that once and I answered it. If I didn’t elaborate it is because my personal life is 1) not relevant to discussions of ideas and 2) I’m narcissistic enough as it is and need to draw the line somewhere.
No, I don’t feel the attraction of Red Pill lifestyle, I have no desire to be a douchebag.
There do seem to be more miserable young people around nowadays, and sure, that is a possible source of attraction for the Red Pill crowd, but the mode of thought, of pretending to see through social structures to the ugly realities underneath, is the appeal to people. It is how they train you to think nowadays. Male vanity and casual misogyny are not new, the mode of thought is.
LikeLike
I disagree, I think our personal lives are relevant to discussions like these. They obviously colour our opinions. I wasn’t suggesting you feel attracted to the ‘philosophy’, just that your imaginative claim that it could go mainstream is based on you being in a similar situation and projecting your feelings minus the Christian focal point onto the rest of humanity.
LikeLike
Well, you are wrong about my feelings. Though perhaps my pessimistic nature is what colors my predictions.
For the rest I think that we are not, for once, in substantial disagreement.
LikeLike
Yes, isn’t that odd? It makes me wonder if I’m wrong about something. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess you’ve never heard the expression, “Never answer a question with a question” Good way to evade answering, though; it obviously pissed you off. 🙂
LikeLike
Me? Ticked off? Hardly. I think you may over value the importance of your opinions about me. I was actually not ticked off at all, but rather busy reading dp’s rather wise and observant words.
LikeLike
Ah, good! You’re not pissed off!
Then answer the question. . 🙂
LikeLike
Hahaha: “…male who should be getting sex but isn’t…” And how exactly is that “should” concluded, or calculated? In comparrison to what?
The world is full of insecure people who have come to terms with their insecurities, through various coping mechanisms. Typical to them is, that such mechanisms allow these individuals to feel like they have conquered the reasons to their insecurities, through some arbitrary game mechanistic ideals, or imaginary supernatural nonsense.
It is somewhat telling, that in this particular case the comparrison can actually be made to the Matrix movies, wich are based on an imaginary conspiracy of all encompassing magnitude. The idea seems to be, that the person in question is – by their own evaluation and most likely in the opinion of their mother – perfect. It is just that the world around them is twisted.
The world is changing mostly in the issue of equality of different genders for better. However, there are some dudes who have grown into believing, that they are deserving of a priviledged position within the society. Instead of trying to learn how to be part of the modern society, they are trying to figure out loopholes, wich would allow them to cope with the reality instead of accepting it.
This is much the same as some Christians presenting themselves as the victims in societies, where they still represent the majority on some level and have been accustomed to bully others around. The bully often may feel generous for giving some slack from bullying and as a result expect, that others should comply to their wishes without them having to resort to violence. But when they find out that they are actually the weaker party and violence is no longer a viable option, they suddenly feel like they have been deprived of something – and enter the coping games.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great comment, Raut, you nailed it. Somehow within society men are given the message that they are entitled to a woman. If they don’t get what they’re entitled to, the problem is not them, it’s women. It’s a dark outlook on life – all conspiracy, jealousy, rage and wasted, bitter sexual desire. A bit of a lonely, dark hole. I wonder if they climb out if they get any kind of relationship success, or if the basis they create for their relationships makes that impossible.
LikeLike
We are all more, or less, supseptible to direct manipulation and cultural expectations.
It seems though, that the culture wich creates false expectations to men about being somehow entiteled to sex, at the same time sets women to become woulnerable to certain kind of manipulation. Like for example, through manipulating girls to believe the value of a woman as an individual comes from male sexual intrest and appreciation of their beauty.
It is these expectations, that make people miserable. Much like commercialism, wich tells us that we are entiteled to own luxyry items and that we are nothing if we do not own stuff, that the advertizers want to sell us. The advertizer is not interrested in people who can not afford those things, but as a result of the commecial have aquired a taste for those things as much as the person who can afford them. This is a big social issue.
I do not even know what to say a person who has grown into such immense self centered nacism, that their thirst for what they expect can only be quenched by manipulating others to give them what they want be it property, sex or even affection. I think it is an unsatiable need and as such their ultimate tragedy.
To me, this is not about wether relationships as games are “normal” or not, but about why and what do we set as the limits of our ethics as a society. Normality is a culturally relativistic concept. Logical conclusion reaching for better ethics is not. We can not set the ethics of each others, but we can determine, that the simple most rule between each ohter is, that my rights end where the rights of a nother begin and vice versa. Nobody has the right to manipulate sex, money, or anything else from a nother, because they would not want them selves to be manipulated to give sex, or money to anyone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OH, and since you asked me a question, I’ll give a response. After all, it IS the polite thing to do. Why does it matter to me what other people believe? Actually, it doesn’t unless those people are trying to get laws changed, working to restrict women’s rights to their own bodies, peddling crap in school (the name for it is creationism), spreading nastiness in the name of their god so as to deny same-sex rights. .. there’s just a FEW reasons. I’d also add that those things deserve the attention of most sensible people.
Now, can you tell me why, as a self-declared SECURE individual, you feel you need an imaginary friend?
LikeLike
Ha carm, as if you are really seeking the answer.
You have left footprints and reams of commentary as proof of feignery, which makes it impossible for you to see through the foggy lens of your exaggerated ego, and NO answer will satisfy a heart looking in the wrong direction..
Who needs God when you erase Him from history…………who needs God when you dismiss Him abruptly as if the very air you breathe is irrelevant……
It is easier to believe God is……….than it is for you you believe you will live to see tomorrow. Imagine that.
LikeLike
Well, my prayers have been answered – CS has returned with his nonsensical diatribe. 🙂
Oh and Violet, to address the subject of your post (sorry for OT-ing) I’ll tell you that you are much braver than me. I avoid those losers and feel that the only sex they should be getting (and I’m sure it’s the case) is sex with themselves. I think that’s probably their problem. But like you say, any sex is probably better than none. (I think the expression around here is, “It’s a lonely – although not altogether unpleasant – job”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually Carmen, many of those men are genuinely having lots of sex, which than begs the question, why are there so many stupid women in the world?
It also answers another of your questions, why do I believe in God? Because the evidence of His existence is all around me, but also because I have learned that we all have a God sized hole within us, that can only be satisfied by His presence. In the absence of God people will instead pour everything else they can into the abyss of their souls, like those ‘spherians do with women.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what bothers me most about that last statement of yours more, IB. The fact that, in order for you to know those men are having lots of sex, you must read that nastiness all the time (is it as titillating as the filth on Biblical Gender Roles’ site?) or the fact that you’d call women stupid for having sex with them – assuming they are telling the truth. Either way, your comment is quite revealing.
God-sized hole? . .. shake head, shake head. . .
LikeLike
It’s actually not titillating at all, some of those guys have totally broken my heart and made me feel a bit sick. How awful it must be to not know you are loved, to go seeking a poor imitation over and over again.
Also, I could not understand the women who follow these guys, who are apparently attracted to them…because they act like jerks incapable of loving anyone. “Stupid” is perhaps a harsh term to use, but uh, there really are women at the other end of all those conquests, women who apparently sell themselves short.
LikeLike
Hi Carmen, I’ve seen Insanity at work with these people. It’s not like I agree with everything she says but she’s attempting to help them see something positive about relationships with women. They’re nasty because they’re hurting and desperately insecure about their inability to form relationships ‘naturally’. The usual story, lashing out and blaming someone else. I agree with Insanity that it’s sad: loneliness and rejection for years on end can lead some people to negative places. It’s even sadder for anyone that gets tangled up in relationships with them.
LikeLike
“In the absence of God people will instead pour everything else they can into the abyss of their souls, like those ‘spherians do with women.”
So, you believe thousands of generations of Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Russians, Slavs, western Europeans, Africans, Australians, American Indians, Indians, Sri Lankan’s, Tibetans, Pacific Islanders, etc, have all lived in an abysmal, joyless, wretched, civilisationless darkness?
That’s interesting, Inanity. Have you ever even stepped foot outside the United States?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Appalling. I think I’ve seen something about these groups on television, but I must have changed the channel because it’s only a faint memory. To me it looks like desperation central- or more precisely, a scam in which people who haven’t developed social skills are exploited. The worse is they go from loneliness to being exploited to then learning how to exploit other people.
What shocked me most were the positive comments under the “commandments”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“they go from loneliness to being exploited to then learning how to exploit other people.”
Totally. It’s quite a big internet movement. Some of the people who post these kind of things have many, many devoted followers. And they’re vicious about criticism. I think Insanity is brave to dip her toe in and criticise them, showing compassion for how they arrived there. Like some others here, it’s somewhere I wouldn’t even bother with – I suspect only real life experiences with normal, nice people can help them out of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How in the world do you all find out about these strange things?
I spent the afternoon trying to make samosas that looked like a triangle instead of a dog doo-doo. I’m half way there- pointy dog doo-doo phase. Progress!
Is this genuinely a big movement? I was surprised at the number of comments, but it seems odd people would think it’s a *real thing*. Fooling someone into sleeping with us? That feels dirty in the worst possible way. What pleasure could anyone get from that?
LikeLike
Here’s a link for you, a popular Christian woman-hater. I think I got this one from Insanity. Posts generally get hundreds of mindless supportive comments. I have it on my reader but it’s so predicable and nasty I don’t usually read them.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/
“Fooling someone into sleeping with us? That feels dirty in the worst possible way. What pleasure could anyone get from that?”
You have to step into their world view to fully understand it. They feel like they grew up duped into thinking females are lovely and one day they’ll be happy with one. Years of rejection and humiliation later (because they’re frankly not attractive) and they come to the conclusion women must be evil. They still want to have sex, they still crave intimacy, but it’s all fucked up in their heads. They’re insecure, in pain and angry. A relationship they feel like they are controlling makes them feel safe and powerful – they find these online communities of like-minded bitter men and feel further empowered and right about their bitterness.
LikeLike
This reminds me of an old episode of Chappelle’s Show which depicted the internet if it were brick-and-mortar.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Indeed.
Scary and disgusting things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It does make me wonder what other horrible philosophies are growing out there online. The possibilities are endless, as are the potential recruits.
LikeLike
Not all MRAs are PUAs. Some are incels: I thought that was an insult, until I saw people self-identifying as incel. A man I met self-identified as beta. He was a really nice guy, and “beta” means nice guy apparently.
The anger and the idiocy mean I can’t stomach it for long. A commenter on my blog wanted me to read a long diatribe on why women should not have the vote. No, ta.
Would you like to attract some MGTOWs so we could have another wee stooshie in your comments thread?
LikeLike
You know them better than me. I’ve only lurked a few times. I don’t think it’s worth discussing anything with them, they’re down a deep rabbit-hole that only real-life interaction can help.
LikeLike
Try Kiwifarms. They identify MRAs and others as LOLCows: eejits who can be milked for lulz. I love all this new vocabulary.
Actually, I think hugboxes can be good for people, in moderation. They get reassurance, and come out eventually. There is no need for white knighting.
LikeLike
You speak in riddles Clare! I have to concentrate so much and guess what everything means, hehe. I’m guessing what a hugbox is, and I expect you’re right – they’re lacking love and reassurance. It’s a shame the result is so hateful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must be more of a recluse than I originally thought! I have never heard of manosphere or anything related to it.
That IB seems more than a little familiar with all the goings-on is a bit disconcerting.
Re: Holes.
I can only speak for myself when I say no orifice on my body is anywhere near deity-sized, but I will acknowledge IB and say, any woman with a ”God-sized hole” is most definitely going going to get screwed by Christianity.
LikeLiked by 5 people
LikeLike
O.m.g. That is a huge groan. And the fact you have likes for your ‘smart’ comment is a bigger groan. I honestly do not know where to start. A blog post perhaps. To explain?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, five likes. I think it’s more of a ‘like’ for Insanity bashing with something that insults Christianity. I just ignore his bad jokes.
I’d be interested to see a post from you on it, because although it’s amazingly not funny, I’m not sure what I’m missing.
LikeLike
Nsanity writes about a spiritual abyss. Ark makes it about PIV via Christianity. The cheap joke is screwing women. Yeah, I’ll write a post for a few deaf ears.
LikeLike
Jokes about screwing women make the world go round. What are you thinking? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jokes about screwing women perpetuate sexism. What are you thinking?
LikeLike
Are you accusing Ark of sexism? Well, I never. The thought never crossed my mind.
LikeLike
Don’t forget all the admirers …
LikeLike
IB was the one who made the comment about stupid women, of whom I consider she is one, and she continually perpetuates a form of stereotyping on her blog and with a great deal of her comments as well.
Yes, she said ”we all” had a god sized hole rather than single out women, but as she was tacitly having a go at stupid women I saw no reason to hold back on my comment and exploit the metaphor to the full.
I wonder if there would have been as much fur flying if I had made the ”victim” male?
LikeLike
Unlike Violet I totally agree with you. No arguments there.
There is only fur flying from me. So you don’t need to worry do you?
LikeLike
To date I have never worried about what I write on the internet.
If I wouldn’t say it to a person’s face then I shouldn’t write it, as this is the mark of a coward.
LikeLike
I’m sorry violet, I could not pass this up. Here you have a religious and lifeless stone god by name and implication, calling a good woman stupid………and this also coming from a person who says life originated apart from Intelligence, Moses never lived, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were fables, sin is a ‘construct,’ morals change daily, death is the end of all, men are but glorified animals, and from whose mouth spues forth some of the vilest language on the internet……..(this last ones a killer)
So calling the lady with the blue dress stupid is no doubt a compliment, since Christ Himself is thought to have a devil. Would to God a stone god enjoyed the light of day.
(again I do apologize, but certain things needs answered)
LikeLike
She called certain women stupid CS, I was simply responding in kind.
The best thing you could for the entire world would be have sex and travel.
You really are a ginormous knob.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m sure Colourstorm is on Christian Mingle…
LikeLike
Is Christian Mingle a form of Theological Penicillin he has to take after trying to fill that God-Sized hole?
LikeLike
OK, you owe me a new keyboard, bastard… this one just got drowned in coke
LikeLike
I knew you were a drug addict!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The nose bleeds are only ever due to the dry air around here
LikeLiked by 1 person
I first heard of it from one of John’s friends a couple of years ago – that red-headed girl from Germany? She had a really good blog, but got tangled up in manosphere, obsessed with arguing with them. I think she had to go private, it’s a horribly nasty little world. Makes some of our interactions here seem like Pleasantsville.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Girl from Germany?
LikeLike
The one that lived in Germany? I can’t remember her name. She had dyed red hair and did punchy interesting posts, really well written, some feminism, then veered off into manosphere and went private. Know who I mean?
LikeLike
Ooooh, Bodycrimes. Great writer.
LikeLike
That’s her! Did you follow her when she went private?
LikeLike
She went private? I guess I did, but she stopped blogging altogether some time ago. We chatted via email a bit.
LikeLike
had a quick squizz – they seem infantile.
LikeLike
Yes, agreed. Young and not too bright.
LikeLike
So, I’ve been thinking about this comment after Roughseas’ post. I can see why she found it irritating. My irritation is separate. I think you’ve done Insanity a disservice. Everybody seems to have a real need to bash everything Insanity says, instead of looking for sense in her comments and responding with a degree of civility. She’s right that these guys have a glaring hole in their lives – they crave love and intimacy, acceptance and validation. Christianity can provide some comfort to them in this respect, so I understand why she sees it as a god shaped hole. Of course, it’s simply a love-shaped hole, which may not have been filled by their parents in the first place, and leads them to have difficulties making ‘normal’ relationships with people they are attracted to. They’re lacking confidence in themselves, and find it on these sites – a sense of belonging and an ‘explanation’ for their failures.
I also understand why some people ‘like’ your comment, in the sense that women more than men can get messed up and mistreated as a result of Christianity. The sexual analogy workedl linguistically but is unfortunate, given the negative connotations for women in quips such as these.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think a lot of us who comment on your blog find exception to 99.9% of what Insanity writes. Simple as that. Pretty much like CS, and … insert names of usual suspects. If she had stuck to saying people were lonely, or needing – something, as you suggest, it would have been reasonable, but as soon as she says ‘God’ can fulfil that emptiness then it’s difficult to take her comments seriously. It’s going down the road of ‘God gave me a parking space today. God fixes everything.’
I thought about answering her comments re: stupid women, but why bother. I really don’t need the religious reply. One can’t have a sensible discussion about morals, ethics, laws, reaponsibility, human rights, with people who live by the bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the ‘stupid women’ comment was odd. We should feel sorry for the poor guys yet be scathing about anyone who falls for them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I rest my case 😉
LikeLike
Insanity does not like women (other than herself). It is obvious to anyone who reads her blog (as if her proud “anti-feminism” banner wasn’t enough).
This is a woman who does not believe marital rape is a thing and who makes fun of women raped by her husbands, claiming they exaggerate and/or only misguidedly imagine it was rape when it really wasn’t — because husbands cannot rape wives, since marriage confers permanent and perpetual consent to sex. This is a woman who stated, on another “Christian” blog, that women have no honor and nobility. This is a woman who likes to tell how women need male “headship,” because without it they cannot find their way out of a paper bag. Rationally enough, she sometimes uses herself as an example of this. Irrationally, she generalizes her experience on every woman in existence.
She likes and respects manospherians more than women — and it shows. She has more in common with them than with other women.
Knowing that, her comment should not surprise one bit.
Insanity represents a certain kind of a Christian woman who orbits the manosphere for her own gratification, even though she’d deny it (look up Sunshine Mary, aka Sunshine Thiry for another example; there are also several others). Like all manospherians, these women share disdain for women in general, and feminists in particular; and they buy into several manospherian ideas (like the inherent inequality of the sexes, which in their eyes is a fact and a positive one at that; and the need for male leadership in all or most areas of life). They also tend to have a “colorful” past that included sexual promiscuity, from which they were “saved” by God and their strong (“alpha”) husbands (God’s will there at work too).
There is something about those mid-to-late life “converts” to fundamentalist Christianity — and those “born again” ones — that makes them especially judgmental and smugly self-righteous. It is as if they must extra strongly condemn that which they once were, or anything that reminds them of what they once were, or else. It looks like some kind of overcompensation, and it is especially nasty — and hypocritical — coming from the supposedly loving and forgiving Christians.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Well, that simply has to be the comment of the year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Emma, thanks for your comment. I have to agree with John that it’s a bit of a stunner. You’ve described the situation regarding Insanity brilliantly. Do you blog? I’d love to read your insights into other things.
“This is a woman who does not believe marital rape is a thing and who makes fun of women raped by her husbands, claiming they exaggerate and/or only misguidedly imagine it was rape when it really wasn’t — because husbands cannot rape wives”
Do you have a link to this? I’ve seen her write some awful things, but nothing quite that bad on this subject. She has a fairytale view of Christianity and relationships, which she openly admits, thinking it’s a good thing. But it’s a dark fairytale played in real life.
I enjoy discussing things with her, she twists words and idea out of all recognition and refuses to acknowledge clear errors. But she’s smart and quirky in her writing, and I think underneath the doublethink mess of her beliefs she means well.
LikeLike
I thought Emma’s comment was a corker too. She doesn’t say anything different to what many of us think, she just laidcit out with time and precision. Most of us are too idle!
‘Smart and quirky’ in her writing? Um. I’d dispute that. Mediocre and stereotypical I’d say. She don’t mean well towards women. At all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Whatever she is, she’s my most fruitful muse! She can’t go more than a few days without dropping a paragraph that merits further discussion.
LikeLike
Thanks, Violet — and all.
No, I don’t blog.
Insanity writes about these poor misguided women who erroneously believe that they’ve been raped by their husbands — because they’ve been brainwashed by feminism, you know — on her own blog (she has at least two posts about it, if I recall). She has also said as much on the BGR blog. If I weren’t so thoroughly repulsed by it, I would go back there and post a link, but I can’t. You can easily find it, I’m sure.
She does twist things and is fundamentally dishonest — but not unusually so (for a Christian, or anyone wedded to any ideology that requires suspension of rational faculties). And she “means well.” I put it in quotes because this is such a trite, cop-out phrase (the Nazis “meant well” too, not to go Godwin on anyone too soon), but I do believe most of the time she genuinely strives to do good. Unfortunately, she is a blinded by her own biases as anyone else; although, because of her indoctrination, she is much less likely to acknowledge them even as they stare her in the face.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Violet, how sad you’re no longer with us, in a manner of speaking. You’ve decided to go away just as I was getting comfortable on your blog. Was it something I said? 😉
It’s too bad.
But I’m glad you’ve not closed the blog, and I hope you won’t — and, what’s more, that you’ll come back soon. I understand, though, why “soon” may not happen shortly (if at all).
I was unable to access my computer and post the kind of responses I wished to in the past week, and now that I can, it doesn’t matter (if it did at all). However, I do have a sense of unfinished business with regard to this thread, so at least I would like to leave a couple of quotes that you asked for, above, from IB’s blog, to support my comment about her views.
From the post “It’s ok to fake it:”
Some women think I’m condoning marital rape or something. That’s absolutely ridiculous. If somebody treats you that poorly, you probably shouldn’t be married to them in the first place. What I’m condemning is women saying no to themselves, to their own enjoyment, because some people in our culture are running around promoting this idea that full bodily autonomy must apply even in the context of marriage, and that consent is completely defined by the emotions, thoughts, and feelings of the moment.
It’s kind of heartbreaking, there are some women right now feeling bad about themselves, feeling ashamed, because they had sex with their husbands when they weren’t really excited about it. I kid you not, they are now concerned that they did not consent, therefore they have betrayed themselves, aided and abetted rape, deceived their husband’s, and let the entire Sisterhood down. All at the same time! Yes, I know it’s crazy, but sometimes women’s heads really will go there, especially as feminism marches a path of destruction right through the whole concept of traditional marriage.
No wonder marriage rates have declined and single people now outnumber married ones in the US. Marriage is challenging enough without all the added angst.
To these women I have to say, stop beating yourselves up. It’s okay! Stop listening to the world’s advice. See, as happy as I may make some men by stating that sex is a part of the marriage deal, that wives should say yes as often as possible, it’s really more about the women and what all these new fangled ideas are trying to do to our heads, to our sexuality, to our marriages. It’s okay to fake it.
That whole thing is insidious, and therefore even worse than an outward promotion of marital rape. This is because, in addition to the blatant (and skeevy) denial that marital rape is possible and indeed happens, it is designed, consciously or not, to mess with women’s perceptions of their own experience, “explaining” to them why they are wrong to feel and believe what they do. Because feminism. Obviously. And it’s “heartbreaking.”
Notice the glib disregard for the truth of women’s experience, and their ability to understand it and define it for themselves, served in the language of concern. That truth is further invalidated by “caring” admonitions to just let go of it, lay back and think of England — and enjoy it, too. You must enjoy it, it is for your own good. Such caring concern.
This kind of insanitysplaining characterizes IB’s blog and her thinking in general, giving them the impression of slipperiness and dishonesty. The oft-underscored oodles of outward empathetic “caring” cover, very imperfectly, an unempathetic, sometimes even cruel and vindictive, mind.
The result of this unwitting cover-up is a form of a double bind in communication, where the expressed, seemingly “benevolent” message conflicts with and is negated by the much less positive one that’s implied and/or seeps through the cracks.
This bind makes it impossible for the recipient of the message to confront its author with her true intentions, and often leads to futile attempts to get at “the truth;” attempts that all the more frustrating since the author always resorts, mostly unconsciously, to plausible deniability afforded her by the explicit, “benevolent” coating of her messages. That’s why, for instance, you never get a direct answer to your simple, direct questions. The defense against the truth is strong in the mind of a double-binder.
The overall effect is that of a slippery slime that is usually vaguely (or not) repugnant, in spite of its almost palatable presentation.
Here is also IB’s interesting response to a supportive commenter on a different but related post:
I have all the empathy in the world for rape survivors, but what are we doing to them with these attitudes?
insanitybytes22said: January 24, 2015 at 5:13 am
It really is brainwashing and brainwashing is one of my pet peeves. Those SJW’s can be downright vicious about it. It’s actually bullying and pretty intense psychological abuse.
I pretty much reject misogyny as a real things in the world. I’m sure we can probably find one or two men who genuinely hate and fear women as an entire state of being, but for the most part it isn’t even possible. You simply do not pursue what you hate and fear unless you’re a serial killer or something.
Note the not too subtle apologia for vile misogynists (they don’t exist, they are impossible — “for the most part”), of the kind she likes to “convert” to kinder, gentler, biblical misogyny through her repeated excursions to the ‘sphere as well as pontificating interventions on her own blog.
The sample of evidence given, I can retire now in relative peace, wishing you the same.
P.S. Pro-tip to IB, her supportive commenters, and others in a similar predicament:
No good can ever follow I have all the empathy in the world for rape survivors, but.
If you feel yourself compelled to make a statement of that kind, stop before your “but” fully invalidates the already unconvincing assurance of your “empathy,” good will, or other fake humane qualities in the preceding clause. Just say what you think without pretending to give a damn. Or try to genuinely employ that empathy and other good qualities for once.
Similarly, though not the same, for “all in good humor, but.” (Talk about double-bind.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t worry, she’ll be back, Emma.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, John.
Emma,
Thanks so much for your comment, and kudos to you for wading through the murk on IB’s blog. I tried a couple of times but the feminist-bashing was too much for me; I haven’t got the stomach for that kind of nastiness.
You’ve also reminded me of the only blog I’ve ever been accused of being a troll on – Sunshine Mary’s. I couldn’t remember the name of it (it was a couple of years ago) but I DO remember how I felt, reading through the conversation. I remember thinking, “How can a woman participate in the denigration of other women?” I do not understand how/why anyone would want to encourage social systems which reinforce social inequality for women, male dominance, or violence against women.
The one thing that WAS perfectly clear to me, from reading through Sunshine Mary’s (great name, eh?) and IB’s blog is this — they are getting attention from males (in my mind, they are not men) and they get off on it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Except Carmen, many women either consciously or unknowingly, participate in denigrating other women. Because that’s how patriarchal society works.
Agree about IBs. Never mind the stomach, I just fall asleep.
And yes, to getting attention. Of course she would, why not? Reinforcing crap about male superiority. *goes off to find sick bucket at the thought*
LikeLike
Funny! She is a (closet?) fundamentalist christian , and a somewhat smarmy one at that.
And I call bullshit on the women can get more messed up crap. That is also pandering to a stereotype.
As for the comment, I have explained my reason for it above.
LikeLike
Excuse me while I barf…
LikeLiked by 3 people
I get that. It used to make me furious. I think I relate it to guys I know now. Guys who got really bitter about relationships and disillusioned with women generally in their loneliness. I think as Raut says above it’s an entitlement problem. Men think they are entitled to a woman, and can’t wrap their head round it when no-one is interested. Pile on sexual frustration, loneliness and humiliation, and this kind of internet community provides comfort and acceptance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not quite. Have a look at the forum “Slut Hate”, where they bitch at each other. Some make foolish lying boasts. It is not a supportive community, but a fight, where any tactic is permissible. I found it when one of them thought the greatest insult he could make to another was that photographs of me were photographs of that other. I was not pleased.
LikeLike
Well the whole thing is pretty negative. Comfort and acceptance can come in unusual forms – even if it’s just a group of people to hate other people with.
LikeLike
I feel that practising Blokeishness there could be pretty isolating: getting a response tickles the dendrites without ever satisfying. Individuals leave hundreds of comments in a month. Poor old Thonis seemed to have completely lost his way.
LikeLike
I get it and I can have a certain amount of empathy, but I can’t stop my gag reflex.
LikeLike
Exactly MM – that’s how those asshats make me feel, too. Feel sorry for the pricks?? Are you kidding me?? (no offense to. . you know. ..)
LikeLike
Pingback: Oh dear | Clouds moving in
Pingback: Filth….? | See, there's this thing called biology...
Found your blog through IB.
“On the few occasions when I’ve gone lurking into manosphere, I’ve not stayed long, finding the posts and comments rather tedious and unintelligent. But there is something about some of the strategies or techniques suggested that I find interesting. Because there is sometimes a surprising, although misleading, element of truth.”
This has pretty much been my experience. I found the manosphere some 4 or so years ago when one of them commented on my old blog. Since then I have mostly lurked in amusement. Ok, so maybe I used to troll some of them, just a little bit, but I agree with you what you are saying here. Some of them are intelligent and truthful, some are ranty and cast off all women as this or that. Either way, it’s definitely helped shaped my views on all things regarding sexuality between women and men, whether that being in agreement or disagreement, seeing their elements of truth or seeing the flaws in their logic.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment. What sites do you recommend to find anyone intelligent? I’ve only seen anger and bitterness sprinkled with mild to extreme stupidity.
LikeLike
Gee. Thanks Violet.
LikeLike
Eh? I was talking about Manosphere sites. Maybe you know some intelligent ones?
LikeLike
Ah. I did think I may have misunderstood afterwards 😀 one encounter with red pill was enough for me. Manosphere and intelligent don’t really sit well together in my NSHO
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that’s why I was asking Ashley. I’d be curious to know where she thinks they show any intelligence.
LikeLike
Manosphere and intelligent don’t really sit well together in my NSHO
Most definitely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been pretty active in the sphere for about two years now.
Strangely, what brought me there was outrage. I was angry when someone linked to a post by Heartiste that basically said his wife was to blame because she “looked like a sack of potatoes”. I got to the forum and read some of the comments like, “if she sexed him up more and looked better he wouldn’t have cheated” and so forth. I noted that he spent about three years out of five living in a tent in a combat zone so did everyone expect the government to jet her out to a middle eastern warzone for weekly conjugal visits?
At any rate, in short order I decided what I was contributing wasn’t very productive, and the posters were pretty hostile, so I backed off and just read because some of the comments did resonate with me. I’ve mentioned recently at IB’s that empathy is a rare thing in the human experience. Most people want to push an agenda and it’s difficult to pause and remove oneself and really try to understand where that other person is coming from. This is particularly true when one assigns oneself victim status and the other oppressor status. That itself creates a mental barrier.
I found a forum that wasn’t too toxic and participated a great deal there until it kind of imploded (imbroded?). I still participate in parts of the sphere. I could go on a while about this, but I don’t have time now. But a couple of things I will say. First, I believe you are wrong that this is some “fringe group” of stupid people. Many are far, far from stupid. Second, they have very concrete reasons to be fed up.
I’ll summarize with this:
There’s vitriol and hate everywhere, it’s just that most people are blind to their own dichotomy. For instance, how do you think that “God sized hole gets screwed” bit comes across to a Christian?
Yet it’s met with “high fives all around! Woohoo! Funny stuff” in here. On the flip side, the “hole humor” that might be ubiquitous (from certain posters) in parts of the sphere is neither more nor less insulting but would surely qualify as misogynistic hate speech to some (most? All?) folks in here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment Liz. The hole ‘joke’ did get some fur flying here too. Roughseas did a post critiquing it if you’re interested.
I wonder if you can remember some of the more intelligent forums you mention here. I’d be really interested to read something beyond childish and bitter woman-hating.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Violetwisp 🙂 This will be a longwinded response, sorry:
The name of that forum was Justfourguys. It didn’t last long. I can’t think of any others I would recommend as evenhanded enough to recommend to you (there are a lot of posters I read, and a lot of posters I scroll past). There are sites I might recommend for those interested in advocating for “male-centric” issues, but the conversation is going to be one-sided.
There are several barriers to reasonable discussion (of contentious issues) for ANY site.
The first barrier is evenhanded moderation.
This requires a LOT of time and effort to police. It doesn’t happen organically. It also requires a set of rules the mods adher to, not just “whatever feels wrong/right”. JFG had the moderation in theory, but since three out of four of the guys didn’t participate anywhere near as much, the moderation came down to one person. There was the perception (with some justification, imo…but that’s going to happen if he’s the primary person involved) that he was taking over the board. Furthermore, there were no concrete rules so it did kind of come down to whatever felt right or wrong from the perspective of the singular mod.
People usually start blogs for personal reasons and want to convey a certain message. We’ll take Rollo’s site as an example. He is not coy about his motivations. It’s a male-centric site and it will stay a male space. Females are guests, not residents. He doesn’t claim to moderate evenly…or at all, in fact. I can’t say I blame him because moderation is incredibly time consuming, and he would need a staff to accomplish it. He accomplishes his objectives far better and more easily if he just lets his topics run their course (for the most part).
The overall problem (reason it’s difficult to find objective and even tempered/noninflammatory/no agenda discussion sites) is pretty obvious. It’s an age of tweeting/twitter/blogs and other instant gratification get the message out without much personal reflection, and there’s the immediate reward when everyone of the same thought congregate together and offer encouragement. So places usually become echo chambers over time, either by design (deleting naysayers directly) or unintentionally (encouraging the in group, discouraging the out group).
The only way moderation can truly be evenhanded (since humans aren’t robots) would be to pick a team of mods from competing ideologies, offer a set of rules/ standards everyone has to agree to as a guideline for participation, and prevent the mods from moderating issues they have a vested interest in.
I was a mod in a forum for many years (before blogs, twitter, and all that). It was very interesting and run very much like what I describe above. Mods were not permitted to moderate topics they participated in, which were ipso facto the ones they had the most direct interest in. Generally it placed the mods in a position where they were forced to view the other side of things, and it placed participants in a position where they were forced to be civil and constructive or they’d get the boot. I actually made a lot of friendships with people of entirely different political persuasions there, and had the most interesting and constructive conversations.
The site eventually went the way of the passenger pigeon too. Too much of a time investment for mods, and people wanted to rant about their favorite topics on sites that permitted ranting. I’m not different, I too enjoy a good rant.
It’s interesting to think about it all in the context of politics and the state of the nation at large. This is the way people operate and think. The things that drive away constructive conversation online are exactly the same things that push forward the popularity of someone like Trump over the popularity of Kasich (a far better candidate).
Just my .02. Thanks for listening, and providing a place to post my thoughts. 🙂
-Liz out
LikeLike
Hi, Liz.
There is no way that Just Four Guys could be described as an “intelligent” and “evenhanded” (as in, balanced, rational, and thoughtful) blog. It was dripping with contempt for and fear of women as much as any other one in the sphere. The only reason you believe so is your own bias, which makes you oblivious to the misogyny in your favorite on-line forums.
Yes, J4G had vague pretensions to be something different at first, but, as it is always the case with groups based on fear and hatred, it quickly showed its true colors and devolved to daily enthusiastic women bashing.
The capricious — some could even say fascistic — moderation by the hot-headed Obsidian was only one of its problems, and not the biggest one. Its glaring misogyny, which characterizes the hell known as the manosphere, was, not surprisingly, its defining feature as well as its greatest shortcoming — and its own undoing.
As you well know — but forget to mention? — J4G folded when Obsidian, its co-founder, chief moderator and most active participant, became fed up with the misogyny spewed on it day in and out, and decided to end his association with it. And since no one else wanted to take on his duties, the blog ceased to exist.
Now I see that it is also “permanently” removed — even though inactive, it was left “as is” for a while (the remaining founders were perhaps embarrassed to leave this evidence of their true characters for all to see) — but of course nothing disappears from the Internet, so one can always find specific posts and comments on it through Wayback Machine.
Here is the Obsidian’s letter of resignation from J4G, which gives the people unfamiliar with the manosphere and this particular chapter of it a glimpse of what went on: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/144834/
Obsidian, despite his flaws, had enough insight and common sense — not to mention a conscience — to bow out of the sick group mired in the misogynistic paranoia, showing himself to be the group’s healthiest member, to the surprise of many (and contempt and derision of others, deeply invested in perpetuating their fears and hatreds).
LikeLike
Emma, I found more intelligent and considered posters on that site than most. I didn’t say it was perfect, my words were: “I found a forum that wasn’t too toxic”
Now, asking whether there is a good “intelligent” forum is kind of like asking if there is a good “intelligent” community just about anywhere. It comes down to the occupants/ participants, doesn’t it? So, some have more intelligent participation than others. Manosphere communities are much like other communities. All sorts of skillsets/agendas/levels of intelligence.
I’ve spent the majority of my online time through the years on topics that interest me. In those places you will find a lot more constructive and intelligent dialogue (military blogs, legal blogs, and so forth).
Sexuality and gender relations are something everyone seems to take an interest in and as a result you’ll find a great deal more participation with corresponding proportionally lower levels of constructive or intelligent conversation.
LikeLike
You are right, Liz, with respect to evenhandedness (as I mention it, and you do not).
However, saying that one blog in the sphere may not be “too toxic” is a very faint praise, as even you must realize.
It is no different than endorsing any hate blog over others because occasionally some of its participants manage to let go of their hatred for a brief moment and happen to make a thoughtful observation (often despite themselves, and to much derision of their fellow travelers).
Those brief moments of rationality do not change the fact that hatred, along with fear, contempt, and extreme prejudice (to the extent one can delineate the differences among them), define it and are the reason for its existence.
LikeLike
“It is no different than endorsing any hate blog over others because occasionally some of its participants manage to let go of their hatred for a brief moment and happen to make a thoughtful observation (often despite themselves, and to much derision of their fellow travelers).”
I wouldn’t say that most of the participants were hateful. If that were the case I would not have participated.
A few were, but I’ve found that pretty much happens anywhere there is a contentious issue (especially without moderation). I use the scroll bar for those.
Lots of different posters, with different backgrounds, in different places in their lives. I had some interesting exchanges and learned quite a lot. There really aren’t many places outside those forums to have those types of discussions.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say that most of the participants were hateful. If that were the case I would not have participated.
Famous last words — of denial and disavowal.
True, not every misogynist of the sphere spews his (or her) misogyny 100% of the time. And some misogynists are less misogynist than others. Some are “just” sexist, and a few are lost and confused. A lost and confused misogynist is still a misogynist, though.
FYI — and you probably know it — misogynist hatred does not have to look like violent eruptions of a frothing-at-the-mouth asylum patient, a Hitler look-alike, or an Elliot Rodger. This hate, like any other, is not always disheveled, ranting incoherently and/or screaming at the top of its lungs.
Misogyny, more often than not, is a cool contempt for women, expressed in generalizations about “women’s nature,” etc., more so than a “hot” rageful hate. It is also a casual tendency to dehumanize women and their experiences (in contrast with those of men). Often, it is presented calmly and “cogently,” with a pretense of rational argument supported by “facts.” If the major spherian bloggers were openly raving “hot” lunatics, most spherians, irrational as they are, would not take them seriously, save some exceptions.
There was no post on J4G, and no discussion under any of the posts, that was misogyny-free. (Although one or two of Obsidian’s posts may have come close to that standard; unfortunately, he’d quickly invalidate this hopeful impression it in his subsequent comments.) It is a fact, Liz, and one that would be easy for anyone to verify if the blog were still up — and one that you’d notice if you weren’t so biased yourself.
The blog’s permanently-etched misogyny is one of the main reasons, I’d speculate, why it has been removed by the administrators, who, coincidentally (?), also lessened their participation in the sphere since. (I suspect some remnants of conscience at work.) Heck, its founder resigned because of its ongoing, unrepentant misogyny. That should give people a clue about its content.
That you may have learned something from it is beside the point. Anyone can — and should — learn from any experience in life, no matter how positive or negative, love- or hatred-filled, rational and not. I too have learned “quite a lot” from reading J4G, but I think my learning was probably different from yours.
There really aren’t many places outside those forums to have those types of discussions.
If by “those types of discussions” you mean sweeping misogynistic generalizations, where participants come to revel in and enlarge their irrational, fear- and contempt-flavored beliefs, then you are right: manosphere is unique in this respect.
If, however, you were looking for more reasoned and rational — and certainly not misogynistic –conversations about gender and relationship dynamics, there are plenty of other places to discuss those.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting exchange Emma. Can I ask why you spent so much time there?
Also, given that you know so much about it, do you agree that it is populated with lonely and bitter guys, or do you think the drivers are base misogyny in society? I’d be interested to know if I’m projecting something onto the participants that simply isn’t the case.
LikeLike
Can I ask why you spent so much time there?
My reasons are partly professional, partly personal. Manosphere is a small and insular world — yes, a fringe, in spite of claims to the contrary — so it is not difficult to become quickly acquainted with its inhabitants and their agendas.
It is an awful job, but one has to do it. For the betterment of humanity and all that. (jk, a bit)
(…) do you agree that it is populated with lonely and bitter guys, or do you think the drivers are base misogyny in society? I’d be interested to know if I’m projecting something onto the participants that simply isn’t the case.
It is both, and you are not projecting. The cultural misogyny that has persisted in the Western (and not just) world for centuries is the constant background, and often an inspiration, for these specific eruptions of private grievances from individual men, who are indeed lonely and bitter — and usually massively entitled, which is one of the main reasons for their loneliness and bitterness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really interesting. Thanks so much for joining the discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If by “those types of discussions” you mean sweeping misogynistic generalizations, where participants come to revel in and enlarge their irrational, fear- and contempt-flavored beliefs, then you are right: manosphere is unique in this respect.”
It has been my experience that many forums are full of people who revel in and enlarge their irrational, fear and contempt-flavored beliefs. The manosphere is certainly NOT unique in that respect.
“If, however, you were looking for more reasoned and rational — and certainly not misogynistic –conversations about gender and relationship dynamics, there are plenty of other places to discuss those.”
It hasn’t been my experience that “plenty of places” have more reasoned and rational conversations about gender and relationship dynamics.
Other places just seem to substitute concepts like “feminine imperative” with concepts like “toxic masculinity”.
LikeLike
It has been my experience that many forums are full of people who revel in and enlarge their irrational, fear and contempt-flavored beliefs. The manosphere is certainly NOT unique in that respect.
Certainly not. But it has the dubious distinction of being the place where unadulterated misogyny, mind-bending in its primitive irrationality, is openly and proudly propagated. In fact, this is the reason for its existence, notwithstanding the propagators’ bogus claims about spreading the truth or encouraging self-improvement and other almost convincing fairy tales.
Other places just seem to substitute concepts like “feminine imperative” with concepts like “toxic masculinity”.
What other places would those be? And why does a discussion about gender relations have to revolve around one of those either/or concepts?
Seeing gender relations, including intimate relationships, as a zero sum game is a mistake with predictable consequences, one of which is creating and/or inflaming mutual animosity between men and women. I don’t consider that truthful or helpful, although it serves an obvious purpose for some.
Unlike the feminine imperative — an imaginary construct peddled in the sphere to “explain” and excuse its peddlers’ failures in relationships and life — toxic masculinity is a real, well documented phenomenon, and one that happens to affect a great number of the spherians.
But, again unlike the mythical feminine imperative, it does not affect all men.
LikeLike
Answering this would take all day and there would be little point.
I’ll just throw this observation out: have you ever heard the word toxic femininity? Even in the “mano”sphere?
The word itself is insulting to men, and it’s not just accepted by a few folks it is mainstream. There is criminal behavior.
There is no such thing as “toxic masculinity”.
It is insulting to men. Masculinity is not a disease nor a crime.
LikeLike
I’ll just throw this observation out: have you ever heard the word toxic femininity? Even in the “mano”sphere?
There is no need for the term, as “females” are toxic by default, in the manosphere’s conceptualization of them. Women are irrational, greedy, selfish, opportunistic, driven by base instincts, solipsistic, hypergamous dick-jumping, child-like creatures. Is that not toxic enough? 🙂
Why, your favorite (?) blogger’s latest post on “empathy” (lol) is as full of “women are toxic” (without using the very word) content as any production of his. Here’s one of those casual but oh-so-informed pronouncements that he likes to make which earn him much applause from his followers:
A woman’s capacity for empathy with a man is directly proportional to his Alpha/SMV status perception with her.
And even that has its limits. Useful Betas may get some token act of empathy but only insofar as how readily his utility can be replaced for her.
Do you realize how this sounds to rational people (those are not the ones who are his commenters, btw)? There is absolutely no evidentiary support for this, or anything that man, like a great majority of spherians, is saying. Beginning with the alpha and beta ridiculousness. It does pander to the prejudices of his crowd, however.
The spherians like to repeat, with a sense of conspiratorial gravity, that there is “no use” in discussing “red pill” ideas with women (or “blue pill” men) because they immediately deny their “revolutionary truth.” What they fail to understand is that all rational people will deny (and laugh at) obvious nonsense. When you set out to inform the world that the Earth is flat, you should be prepared for derision. Surely those who have retained some remnants of rational thinking can grasp that, I’d (like to) believe.
There is no such thing as “toxic masculinity”.
It is insulting to men. Masculinity is not a disease nor a crime.
Masculinity is most definitely NOT a disease or a crime. Who says that? (This is a serious question.)
Toxic masculinity has very specific connotations, Liz: it describes a subset of male (but not only*) attitudes and behaviors that are destructive to everyone, men included — and even predominantly men, in some cases.
For example, the ideal of a stiff upper lip, stoic, “rock” of a man who is unshakable by life’s troubles contributes to male suicides as it teaches men that being confused and “needy,” and seeking emotional help and support for their problems is unacceptable. But that same toxic masculinity-derived ethos approves of and promotes, tacitly and not, destructive rage as a “masculine” or even “heroic” way to deal with emotional troubles. This makes reaching for a gun, for instance, an easier solution than seeking developmentally-positive support (like therapy).
I could go on, but I hope you understand why toxic masculinity is quite specific and does not encompass masculinity as such. The term is not insulting to men who know what it means. If anything, it helps them increase their understanding of themselves and societal attitudes and expectations that are harmful to them.
As a matter of fact, what manospherians like Tomassi in the above quote and the entirety of his online existence rail against is, at least in part, the toxic masculinity ethos which he, like so many men, absorbed as their identity. Unfortunately, they also promote in the same breath. It is a peculiar kind of pathology — a divided mind that wants to eat the cake and have it too.
When he so glibly generalizes the supposedly opportunistic nature of women’s empathy, he taps into that very ethos of toxic masculinity positing that only Manly Men (those mighty “alphas”) are deserving of various goodies, including female empathy. That IS something to rail against — but it is not a women-made phenomenon, nor one that characterizes “women’s nature” as such, or some feminine imperative, which is what he wants it to be (because in manosphere women are always to blame for men’s troubles).
Of course he wants to have the cake, too, so he is perfectly comfortable insisting that women should put up with all kinds of crappy behaviors from men, including chronic destructive rage — now that would be true empathy, as he appears to understand it. (Actually, he goes even further, insisting that women crave crappy behavior from their men — thus dread game and other nonsense.)
Like all spherians, he wants men to behave in toxic ways, but he does not want to face the responsibility and real life consequences of such behavior. If anything, he seems offended by the fact that society — and more specifically, women — are not keen on putting up with such toxicity, and so be bemoans it as the women’s inherent lack of empathy. That strikes one as psychopathic, or toddler-like, depending on perspective. But it is quite toxic, either way.
*Women can and do play a part in promoting toxic masculinity (i.e., a mom who derisively tells her crying son to “be a man” and stuff it; etc.)
LikeLike
“Masculinity is most definitely NOT a disease or a crime. Who says that? (This is a serious question.)”
It’s implicit in the word.
Ever hear the word “toxic” followed by something intended to be viewed as good?
LikeLike
Ever hear the word “toxic” followed by something intended to be viewed as good?
Did you read the rest of my comment, including the part where I talk about toxic masculinity as a *specific* subset of attitudes and behaviors, rather than masculinity as such?
Do you believe those destructive and self-destructive behaviors are positive, or non-toxic (continuing with the phrase), and that they exemplify proper, as it were, masculinity, which should be championed and promoted?
I don’t know what specifically offends you: is it the word, or the idea that some masculine behaviors, and the mindset associated with them, are considered so destructive as to be labeled toxic?
I’m not wedded to the word — we can discard it, for all I care. But if you believe that there is no such thing as destructive male behaviors expressive of a certain (culturally supported) mindset, then I will have to disagree.
LikeLike
“Did you read the rest of my comment, including the part where I talk about toxic masculinity as a *specific* subset of attitudes and behaviors, rather than masculinity as such?”
Yes, but that was your only question. Did you have another “serious” question I missed?
Asked and answered. I don’t find your personal rationalizations/justifications for the language as used (it’s not YOUR word, it’s mainstream). Now, I’ve already said criminality is criminality and (I think, but I won’t bother to reread) brutality is brutality, especially when you’re “shuddering” at me as you did in your response to IB below. Good grief. What’s the point? There is none. Commence the ridicule and feel good about yourself. See ya.
LikeLike
What “shuddering” are you talking about, Liz? I have not responded to IB yet.
LikeLike
BTW, there are self destructive and/or criminal female behaviors that are accepted in society too. You know what I call them?
Self destructive and/or criminal behaviors.
LikeLike
Mistyped above.
Meant to say self destructive behaviors that are accepted in society. Obviously criminality isn’t…or it wouldn’t be criminality.
LikeLike
But I must ask:
What self-destructive behaviors of women (unlike those of men) do you think are accepted by society?
LikeLike
LOL Sorry Emma. I thought it was you shuddering at me below, but I misread the person and intent of the message.
Long day. My apologies.
I just got home and scanned (and answered) too quickly.
(I’ve posted this twice, the reply feature is confusing too the thread is getting long)
LikeLike
“What self-destructive behaviors of women (unlike those of men) do you think are accepted by society?”
I just noticed this one.
I mentioned Influence and social conditioning in a post below. Now stand at the checkout counter and take a quick sweep at the tabloids. These are values that are being promoted, almost entirely to women.
LikeLike
I do realize, Emma, that this warrior stuff is all very “toxically masculine”.
There aren’t a lot of nice ways to get killed or kill people. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
Words mean things. Language is important.
Groups of people create slogans so they catch on and become accepted and people make associations with those words. That’s why political slogans are effective, even when they are essentially meaningless.
“Rape culture” is a slogan. “Toxic masculinity” is another. These are ubiquitous themes in the media with specific objectives. They are designed to create distain and fear.
LikeLike
Should the presumption of innocence apply to men in sexual assault trials? It does not, currently, in the campus kangeroo tribunal process nor the courts martial process. I could cite evidence but something tells me you would neither be interested, nor care.
LikeLike
Did you know that the last USAF “sweep” confiscated more than 32,000 items that inspectors deemed to be inappropriate, offensive, unprofessional and even pornographic”. That made headline news. What did make headline news was the actual content of this inappropriate material which included things like the vintage squadron pilot song books, World War II-era nose art photos stored on government computer systems…basically any recreational material that was pilot related before 1990 was contraband, along with anything with a picture of a woman wearing a bathing suit.
One squadron had a lamp like the leg lamp in A Christmas Story, and that was contraband too. One of the “worst” items was put there by female spouses…the wives had a “naming ceremony” the weekend before and left a g-string on a hook in the bar as a gag, and the squadron was penalized for that. In fact, the front page of the Airforce times was contraband because it showed women breastfeeding. This is modern day witch hunt culture.
LikeLike
“Did you know that the last USAF “sweep” confiscated more than 32,000 items that inspectors deemed to be inappropriate, offensive, unprofessional and even pornographic”. That made headline news.”
Hi Liz, just catching up on some of your comments here. My initial reaction was ‘so what?’, kind of like Carmen. Then I figured you’re trying to suggest that the alleged headline news (can’t find any mention of it online at all) is indicative of a witch-hunt against men? I guess if you’re looking for it you can see it anywhere, given that men are half the population, and most news coverage is about men anyway, and most headline grabbing news aims to shock. I think the fact you think this would illustrate anything other than typically bad media reporting suggests you have obsession goggles on. But out of interest, can you give me links to some of the headline news on this?
LikeLike
What did NOT make headline news was the content, meant to say above.
LikeLike
. . and this all means exactly. . . what?
LikeLike
I’d have to disagree with you Liz. “Toxic masculinity” a ubiquitous theme created by the media to create disdain and fear? So. . . somehow not deserving? I think you’re way off base here. Toxic masculinity is a term coined to describe a certain segment of the population – that segment of males who consistently denigrate women and, as Emma has so rightly pointed out, their misogyny becomes a lifestyle. I am assuming you have a different opinion of these males? That you think they’re misunderstood? Or that their hatred for women is somehow JUSTIFIED??
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’d have to disagree with you Liz. “Toxic masculinity” a ubiquitous theme created by the media to create disdain and fear?”
That’s right
” So. . . somehow not deserving? I think you’re way off base here. Toxic masculinity is a term coined to describe a certain segment of the population – that segment of males who consistently denigrate women and, as Emma has so rightly pointed out, their misogyny becomes a lifestyle.”
It’s used to describe certain behaviors like “manspreading”, not groups of people.
And again I’ll ask…ever hear of toxic femininity? Why use those words exactly?
Why denigrate masculinity at all? Masculinity is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. If you disagree you should use some introspection and consider how inherently biased that really is.
“I am assuming you have a different opinion of these males? That you think they’re misunderstood? Or that their hatred for women is somehow JUSTIFIED??”
Hatred isn’t justified. Anger might very well be justified.
I’ve already mentioned above my thoughts on the matter, these are groups of people with different life observations. It might be comforting to place them all in the category of “haters” to dismiss everything they say, but that isn’t reality…though there are definitely some toxic individuals (exhibiting toxic behavior, NOT toxic masculinity) in those forums.
LikeLike
“Anger might very well be justified”. I think you need a reminder that their anger (real or contrived) has tragic consequences. As Margaret Atwood said, “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them”.
LikeLike
Carmen: “. . and this all means exactly. . . what?”
You’re kidding, right? I give up.
Thanks, I could have wasted a lot of time on this.
LikeLike
Yes, of course Carmen. Angry men kill. Angry women…yeah, they’re no problem at all.
Fear men with all their toxic masculinity.
It’s an unbelievably pervasive theme.
LikeLike
Wow, Liz. Does the easy attention you get from these males make this all worthwhile? I had read about female misogynists but never run across one on a forum before. . you’re running out of credibility, at least in my books. 😦
LikeLike
Now i’m a misogynist. Of course.
Carmen, I do not believe for a minute that I had any credibility with you. I lost that the minute I rejected the toxic masculinity and everyone in the sphere is an ipso facto ignorant toxic hater theme.
See my first and second posts up above. They ring true now.
Here is a very good article explaining what is happening here, for those interested:
You should like it. It’s written by a person in your camp. But he’s a very honest person with a great deal of self awareness. The kind of person that is extremely rare in any camp. It’s long but worth the read.
LikeLike
Liz, it was probably an overstatement to call you a female misogynist; I apologize for that. I am reading through the link (you’re correct – it’s looong – but have two grandchildren arriving; I may not be posting for awhile.
LikeLike
Enjoy your grandchildren, Carmen. 🙂
And thankyou.
LikeLike
LOL Sorry Emma. I thought it was you shuddering at me below, but I misread the person and intent of the message.
Long day. My apologies.
I just got home and scanned (and answered) too quickly.
LikeLike
Re: premature shuddering
No prob.
I mean, I may shudder you yet — the night is young and one never knows, but I’m not there yet. Anyway, my right shoulder, the one I do my shuddering with, hurts again from who knows what (maybe excessive shuddering? though my preferred mode of expressing disapproval ‘n such is an eyeroll), and in any case I kinda enjoy talking with you, even though we disagree, and probably will continue so, on most matters, so I’m not inclined to shudder you any time soon if that’s OK with you. I may resort to an eyeroll at some point, but you are unlikely to see it.
Right now, however, I must attend to other things, so it all shall wait, your patience permitting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
”Hi Liz, just catching up on some of your comments here. My initial reaction was ‘so what?’, kind of like Carmen. Then I figured you’re trying to suggest that the alleged headline news (can’t find any mention of it online at all) is indicative of a witch-hunt against men? I guess if you’re looking for it you can see it anywhere, given that men are half the population, and most news coverage is about men anyway, and most headline grabbing news aims to shock. I think the fact you think this would illustrate anything other than typically bad media reporting suggests you have obsession goggles on. But out of interest, can you give me links to some of the headline news on this?”
The service-wide “sweep” witchhunt isn’t only about the media (though they’re definitely to blame for a great deal of the hysteria.
Here is the cascade of consequences:
Media hysteria (intended to generate outrage, often based on limited evidence without context because that sells)
–→public outrage created by the media—
→Congress people catering to hyperbole and outrage rather than fact, often no basis whatsoever in fact—
→placing pressure on the services—-
→ pressure on the generals in charge (who are politicians themselves) to “do something”.
Since a bureaucracy is the stupidest entity ever created by humans, end result is a lot of politically motivated prosecutions and some really absurd restrictions.
I provided that example because it is the best, most succinct representation I can think of that summarizes the absurdity of what is currently happening.
We have people whose job description requires they blow things up and kill people. They take the personal risk of encountering lots of oncoming fire and missiles and crashing into a fire ball or dying of exposure within a few seconds from bailing out into the icy seas, and they’re getting punished for having a vintage (era WWII) squadron book of socially un-redeeming songs (called, “Horrifying!” gasp…for those who don’t know, which is now 99 percent of the population, socially unedifying songs are pretty integral to esprit de corps and have been for a long, long while…watch Band of Brothers sing ‘Blood on the Rafters’, or look up those lyrics, but first watch the other DVDs to see what they go through) buried somewhere in back of a bar or a picture book of vintage nose art. Their personal lockers are searched for “contraband” which includes princess Leia action figures, or a copy of Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
Here is one link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3022005/Book-songs-used-U-S-Air-Force-contains-horrifying-lyrics-rape-pedophilia-homosexuality.html
BTW, the article is incorrect about “on duty” alcohol. The squadron bar is a place to decompress and talk about the day’s mission. When the beer light is on the workday is over. They can’t drink within 12 hours of flying. Don’t believe everything you read (I’d give it the 15 percent rule…about 15 percent is true…the rest is written, often without context, in a way to make the reader draw inaccurate conclusions). Don’t believe every person who goes to the media with a story either. I know a lot of these people, and some of them are very bad eggs (and, choose to belieive this or not, women who work with them think so too).
LikeLike
Liz, are you talking about these lyrics?
Who take two ice picks
Stick ‘em in her ears
Ride her like a Harley
Till the cum comes out her ears
The S&M man, The S&M man
The S&M man cause he mixes it with pain
And makes the world feel good!
Who can take a cheese grater
Strap it to his arm
Ram it up her cunt
And get Vagina parmesan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/31/the-u-s-air-force-s-sick-rape-party-songbook.html
I’m jumping here in between things, so forgive me if I’ve missed something. Do you believe that kind of “motivational” bro-bonding fare is acceptable?
LikeLike
Here is another link on a military blog:
http://blog.militaryauthority.com/blog-1/bid/293966/air-force-girlie-mag-sweep-it-was-dumber-than-we-could-ever-have-imagined
Here is the Navy Times:
http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20121218/NEWS/212180313/AF-inspections-sweep-away-TV-shows-magazines
LikeLike
How about this one. It’s one of the most popular:
“He was just a rookie trooper and he surely shook with fright,
He checked all his equipment and made sure his pack was tight;
He had to sit and listen to those awful engines roar,
“You ain’t gonna jump no more!”
(CHORUS)
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain’t gonna jump no more!
“Is everybody happy?” cried the Sergeant looking up,
Our Hero feebly answered “Yes,” and then they stood him up;
He jumped into the icy blast, his static line unhooked,
He ain’t gonna jump no more.
(CHORUS)
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain’t gonna jump no more!
He counted long, he counted loud, he waited for the shock,
He felt the wind, he felt the cold, he felt the awful drop,
The silk from his reserves spilled out, and wrapped around his legs,
He ain’t gonna jump no more.
(CHORUS)
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die
Suspension lines were tied in knots around his skinny bones;
The canopy became his shroud; he hurtled to the ground.
He ain’t gonna jump no more.
(CHORUS)
The days he’d lived and loved and laughed kept running through his mind,
He thought about the girl back home, the one he’d left behind;
He thought about the medic corps, and wondered what they’d find,
He ain’t gonna jump no more.
(CHORUS)
The ambulance was on the spot, the jeeps were running wild,
he medics jumped and screamed with glee, they rolled their sleeves and smiled,
For it had been a week or more since last a ‘Chute had failed,
He ain’t gonna jump no more.
He hit the ground, the sound was “SPLAT”, his blood went spurting high;
His comrades, they were heard to say “A hell of a way to die!”
He lay there, rolling ’round in the welter of his gore,
He ain’t gonna jump no more.
here was blood upon the risers, there were brains upon the chute,
Intestines were a-dangling from his paratroopers suit,
He was a mess, they picked him up, and poured him from his boots,
He ain’t gonna jump no more.
Millenia of warriors have decompressed via socially unedifying ways. What you’re doing is demanded a PC way for them to decompress, which is different from the way it has been done for centuries. On what basis to you make the assessment that this is a better way? Have all the very best seasoned warriors of Christmases past have revved themselves up to go into battle by weeping and sharing stories at the therapist’s office? In my experience (I say that a lot, don’t I?) people who have seen the worst combat stuff don’t find it therapeutic to talk about it to folks who have never been in that position. They DO find it therapeutic to talk about it with folks who have. And, yeah, I’m sure a lot of it is unedifying and raw.
LikeLike
Millenia of warriors have decompressed via socially unedifying ways. What you’re doing is demanded a PC way for them to decompress, which is different from the way it has been done for centuries. On what basis to you make the assessment that this is a better way? Have all the very best seasoned warriors of Christmases past have revved themselves up to go into battle by weeping and sharing stories at the therapist’s office? In my experience (I say that a lot, don’t I?) people who have seen the worst combat stuff don’t find it therapeutic to talk about it to folks who have never been in that position. They DO find it therapeutic to talk about it with folks who have. And, yeah, I’m sure a lot of it is unedifying and raw.
Wait, Liz. Are you talking to me? AFAIK, I was the only one who responded about the songs (with an example) after Violet asked you for sources.
If so, then aren’t you jumping (defensively) to conclusions?
I have not “demanded” anything, not yet — have I?
I’ve only asked you if you found those particular lyrics acceptable as a male bonding exercise. You have not even answered my question, but instead launched into this defensive… accusation (?). Which is a response, in a way.
Slow down, girl / woman, whichever you prefer. If there is any possibility of a conversation to be had, it’d behoove us to try to process what’s being said and why.
That “why,” or “how” maybe, would have been my next question if you answered my initial one in the affirmative.
As in, why (and how) do you find it acceptable that our male soldiers — who work for us, are on our payroll, and represent, in theory at least, our values and ideals — should draw inspiration for their work in texts that objectify, degrade and dehumanize women, and glorify their rape, sexual torture, and mutilation (I hope I didn’t miss anything)?
Well, I suppose you skipped all those unnecessary exploration steps and went straight for the answer, of sorts.
So let’s continue with that then.
the way it has been done for centuries
Is it really true that “for centuries” male soldiers going to war and fighting in it found inspiration in songs that glorified rape, sexual torture, and mutilation of women? Can you give any examples of that?
The stories I know from the two recent WWs — and I know a few, military history and patriotism were kinda a thing in my family of origin — show soldiers being inspired by higher ideals, like love for the country and family, and devotion of and to their wives and GFs. There was no raping and mutilating, certainly not in the songs or other “inspirational” texts that we (I) know of. But if you can show that indeed this kind of stuff was normal and well-known for centuries as the warriors’ inspirational fare, and we (I) just missed it, I’d appreciate it
On what basis to you make the assessment that this is a better way?
I have not yet made that assessment, but I am glad you preemptively asked (again!). I do not see what good can be accomplished by promoting male bonding through dehumanization, degradation, and sexual torture of women. If you, however, believe that this a good and proper way, I’d love to hear your reasons why it is so.
Have all the very best seasoned warriors of Christmases past have revved themselves up to go into battle by weeping and sharing stories at the therapist’s office?
Wait a minute. Glorified, in song, rape-torture-mutilation of women vs. weeping and sharing stories at the therapist’s office (during Christmases past, of all times…) — are those the only options you can think of? Or are you being purposely contrary and, may I say, obtuse, because you are on the defensive and prefer to attack (or preempt an attack) this way? And/or really don’t care to talk about it. Which would be fine. You can just say so.
LikeLike
I’m talking about singing. Something isn’t against the law (yet).
LikeLike
Emma, there is no raping a mutilation of women. There are unedifying songs.
The songs in that songbook come from the past. I haven’t heard a single one sung in over a decade and a half. But I wouldn’t care if they were.
If you actually know anyone who has been in direct combat (not supply or logistics, but direct combat) for any length of time, I guarantee they’ve sung songs and said things that were socially unedifying. I can tell you from experience in the OR the more up close and personal the gore, the more unedifying the conversations. It’s a psych defense mechanism. But I’ve never been shot at directly in combat or faced anything like what these guys face and are expected to face.
LikeLike
Emma, there is no raping a mutilation of women.
Is there some an alternative interpretation possible here?
Who take two ice picks
Stick ‘em in her ears
Ride her like a Harley
Till the cum comes out her ears
The S&M man, The S&M man
The S&M man cause he mixes it with pain
And makes the world feel good!
Who can take a cheese grater
Strap it to his arm
Ram it up her cunt
And get Vagina parmesan
Was that consensual and they just forgot to mention it, what with the fog of war ‘n all?
There are unedifying songs.
There are unedifying songs and there are unedifying songs, Liz. You know this very well, and you are just dodging now. As you said yourself, Words mean things. Language is important.
Language does not stop being important when you want to disregard the meaning and importance of the message because doing so suits your views.
Imagine your / manospherians’ reactions if a group of women, or worse, feminists (gasp), sang something similar about men. There would be so much fur flying, the interwebz and nearby universe would ‘splode.
The songs in that songbook come from the past. I haven’t heard a single one sung in over a decade and a half. But I wouldn’t care if they were.
I would, and do (care). Also about the truth. Truth matters. So I believe that question I tend to ask, “Is it really true?”, is a good one and of universal applicability.
When we make any claims, we should be able to support them by facts. You know this, Liz. Since you claimed that songs using the theme of dehumanization, sexual degradation, rape, and torture of women (I’m gong on the assumption that the lobotomy and aggravated rape gleefully bandied about in the song were not really consensual) have been used as a military inspirational fare “for centuries,” I expect you to support this claim with examples.
If you actually know anyone who has been in direct combat (not supply or logistics, but direct combat) for any length of time, I guarantee they’ve sung songs and said things that were socially unedifying. I can tell you from experience in the OR the more up close and personal the gore, the more unedifying the conversations.
Have your distressed patients engaged you in “unedifying” conversations that involved fantasies of rape and sexual torture? I suspect the answer is no. Why do you think not?
It’s a psych defense mechanism. But I’ve never been shot at directly in combat or faced anything like what these guys face and are expected to face.
Again, there are psych defense mechanisms and there are psych defense mechanisms. IOW, not all are created equal.
I would like you to think, Liz, and not serve a bevy of predictable excuses and rationalizations. That’s just intellectually lazy, and, frankly, unbecoming.
What good do you see in using descriptions of dehumanization and degradation of women, including rape, mutilation, and torture (and probably murder — I don’t suppose one survives homemade lobotomy with prejudice) in male bonding? And please do not use the war as the excuse, because you very well know — or should — that this kind of bonding is not limited to soldiers, in active combat and not, but is also found in male group sports, fraternities, and, last but not least, in the manosphere — every glorious day.
Who take two ice picks
Stick ‘em in her ears
Ride her like a Harley
Till the cum comes out her ears
The S&M man, The S&M man
The S&M man cause he mixes it with pain
And makes the world feel good!
Who can take a cheese grater
Strap it to his arm
Ram it up her cunt
And get Vagina parmesan
Go, Air Force! On our dime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In fact, thinking further, you can almost tell by the conversations in the breakroom exactly where you are in the hospital. Folks who deal with trauma constantly are a lot less PC, more graphic, have less socially redeeming senses of humor. Go to other parts of the hospital (like the maternity ward) and it’s a lot nicer (or at least as nice as it gets…there’s always frank and at least slightly un-PC talk when one is dealing with guts and butts and goo and so forth on a near daily basis).
LikeLike
In fact, thinking further, you can almost tell by the conversations in the breakroom exactly where you are in the hospital. Folks who deal with trauma constantly are a lot less PC, more graphic, have less socially redeeming senses of humor. Go to other parts of the hospital (like the maternity ward) and it’s a lot nicer (or at least as nice as it gets…there’s always frank and at least slightly un-PC talk when one is dealing with guts and butts and goo and so forth on a near daily basis).
Sure. But, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, there are un-PC conversations and then there are un-PC conversations.
I am quite certain that as “unedifying” as the convos in the maternity or trauma etc. wards are, they do not typically, if ever, involve protracted and detailed descriptions of rape, sexual mutilation, and torture of women (or men). Followed by a high-five or a slap on the back for added affirmation of the brotherly bond.
Surely you can see the difference and why it matters. To most people, even if you are not in that group.
LikeLike
This thread is so long I’m not sure if I’m responding on the right reply.
Most of the songs in the squadron songbooks date back to WWII, some Vietnam. Much like the now banned “nose art” it was insensitive.
You’ll notice on Blood on the Risers the revelry is all about the fun act of death of a new jumper. His chute doesn’t open and the medics are filled with glee because they haven’t seen a body in a week…then they pour him out of his shoes. So I guess if a song about S and M is the equivalent of rape and mutilation that song is the equivalent of fratricide. Oh, those silly soldiers and their wishes for self-immolation!
You know what, you got me. We should monitor what these people sing, listen to, and watch in their leisure time and make sure it isn’t socially unredeeming. It’s the taxpayers money afterall. THat is actually what is happening now. Not even a princess Leia action figure in a personal locker! But, we have to be consistent. Any person working on the taxpayer’s dime also should have his or her free time monitored…no more rap music, that’s for sure.
Start with Congress. I’m sure there’s an awful lot of interesting stuff in their desks, and the lockers of their interns.
LikeLike
As a side note, for anyone who is truly concerned about real life imitating song “art”.
When the songs in this book came out (and the “worst” published and pointed out) the response was pretty much, “huh, never heard of that one…”
There are three pilot songs I’ve actually heard. One, entitled ‘Sammy Small’ (“my name is Sammy Small f*ck them all…” go the lyrics).
That one was sung in protest (it’s a song of protest) after one of the pilots was not permitted to have a fini flight (his last flight with the squadron…he had cancer and was off flying status).
The other, “I love my wife” (“I love my wife yes I do yes I do…I love her truly”….and then they proceed to sing about loving her so much they engage in coprophagia “with a rusty spoon”) I’ve heard that one sung about four or five times, on queue after someone says they love their wife at a farewell, or thanks her or something. No, they dont’ actually engage in coprophagia (they aren’t the Luftwaffe).
The other is Marian Burns “queen of all the acrobats. She can do tricks that will give a guy the sh*ts”. I haven’t heard that one in 20 years.
LikeLike
“When we make any claims, we should be able to support them by facts. You know this, Liz. Since you claimed that songs using the theme of dehumanization, sexual degradation, rape, and torture of women (I’m gong on the assumption that the lobotomy and aggravated rape gleefully bandied about in the song were not really consensual) have been used as a military inspirational fare “for centuries,” I expect you to support this claim with examples.”
Here is a little (very very widely know, so not really a…) secret:
It wasn’t just songs. In the bad old days (prior to nice things like rules of engagement based on the Geneva Conventions and such) people during wars did a lot of bad things. I don’t really have to post proof of that, do I? They didn’t just sing songs about doing bad things. I’d say songs (whatever that snappy little jingle might be) are actually a pretty healthy way to deal with combat stress in the broad scheme of things.
Believing that the warriors of old were somehow more heroic and didn’t use vulgar songs or socially unedifying commentary as compared to now is a bit the little kid who found out his dad is a secret drinker and runs around saying his real father is a prince. But go right ahead.
Taxpayers who elect the very officials who send our soldiers out to combat to get killed/shot at/maimed should be happy when those soldiers perform their very stressful and dangerous task as required and worry less about what they sing about and talk about in their free time.
Bye now, Emma.
LikeLike
As a side note, the way you interpreted my explanation of JFG as “evenhanded” is an example of what I’m speaking of here. The dichotomy creates ideological myopathy.
I didn’t say it was evenhanded, I actually said the opposite (along with a pretty detailed explanation of why that was the case).
LikeLike
P.S. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that J4G was created when its co-founders were permanently banned from Susan Walsh’s blog, Hooking Up Smart, for — you guessed it — their unrelenting misogyny.
Hurt by the rejection, they wanted to stick it to Walsh and open a blog where their views would rule. Consequently, “sticking it to Susan,” often referred to as Aunt Giggles, became, in one form or another, a permanent and recurring theme of J4G, just as it is on Rollo’s Rational Male. (Rollo, too, was one of the banned.)
Misogynist butthurt and desire for revenge run deep for many. For some, they become a lifestyle.
LikeLike
It’s definitely true they didn’t like Susan Walsh. They weren’t coy about that.
I’d never heard of her before that.
LikeLike
Just re-reading most post above, I guess I can understand how you’d interpret my meaning to be JFG was evenhanded. I wasn’t as clear as I could have been.
LikeLike
Thanks Violet. Linky mighty have been helpful?
https://cloudsmovingin.wordpress.com
However Liz overrates your readers. No-one else found it offensive apart from your or I, for diffrerent reasons.
LikeLike
Hello, Liz. I have to pick you up on that. Who do you think is unable to empathise because they claim victim status? It could not possibly be those “Christians” who falsely imagine the Bible condemns gay people, claim Obergefell v Hodges victimises them, and so support the Ugandan act which would sentence us to imprisonment for life, simply for making love? Do they empathise with how we feel about adults in adult relationships facing homophobic violence?
Absolutely. Empathy is essential. I agree. Sometimes, not feeling heard, I will express my feelings more strongly. Sometimes, it is better simply to disengage: I rarely comment on radical feminist blogs, they will dismiss what I say. I do seek to understand; but some views are objectively abhorrent. I could not have a useful conversation with that man who wanted women not to be able to vote- we managed to get almost to courtesy, but no meeting of minds.
It might help if we saw each other as having invincible ignorance about particular things- “Oh, OK. That is her insanity”- and engaged about those things where we might inform each other’s opinions. But sometimes there is no such common ground.
LikeLike
“Who do you think is unable to empathise because they claim victim status? It could not possibly be those “Christians” who falsely imagine the Bible condemns gay people, claim Obergefell v Hodges victimises them, and so support the Ugandan act which would sentence us to imprisonment for life, simply for making love? Do they empathise with how we feel about adults in adult relationships facing homophobic violence?”
Are you asking me out of interest?
I can tell you now that you are not coming across as a person attempting a constructive dialogue but as an antagonist with an agenda.
This makes it difficult for me to empathize with you. The best way to engage a person is to drop the agenda, pause, and reflect and try to understand what the other person is saying. Which brings me to….
“Sometimes, not feeling heard, I will express my feelings more strongly. Sometimes, it is better simply to disengage: I rarely comment on radical feminist blogs, they will dismiss what I say. I do seek to understand; but some views are objectively abhorrent. I could not have a useful conversation with that man who wanted women not to be able to vote- we managed to get almost to courtesy, but no meeting of minds.”
Here we have common ground.
It is not useful to converse with a person whose views one sees as objectively abhorrent (or vice/versa…there’s no point in engaging someone who sees your views as abhorrent, this goes both ways).
The best thing to do in that situation is drop the subject. The worst thing to do is to stoop immediately to insults because they reflect poorly on the person and can send a message to others that he or she isn’t a reasonable person.
For instance, posting something like, “I hate you, you are evil” and so forth (as you have, on IB’s site) tells me that it would probably be frustrating and a waste of time for me to try to engage you.
LikeLike
That was different.
The Bible is full of warnings. I read someone who thinks that the Uganda Act has anything at all to do with child rape, apart from as a vicious lie to defame gay people, and I see that those warnings are appropriate. And the Bible is full of hate, too: righteous anger against oppression.
At first, I sought to explain. But seeing explanation falling on deaf ears, I condemned.
There you are, condemning those who claim victim status and claiming it.
I am indeed your antagonist. I want you to repent. But I found your condemnation of “claiming victim status” more than usually lacking in self-knowledge.
LikeLike
Firing the noted cannon, Clare.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I’ll post my overall impression, to summarize.
So…boos, hisses, whatnot are probably forthcoming. But whatever. I’m not doing this to persuade, I’m under no delusions of that, but just to offer an opinion of why the sphere exists and some of the concerns that created it…beyond just “irrational hateful fringe monsters! all of them!”.
First: Social conditioning is a fact of life and it is used to sway entire populations, quite often. Read Influence (by Robert B. Cialdini) to see how this works.
Sometimes that influence is a good thing. For example the meme “crime doesn’t pay”. The statement itself is erroneous in the extreme. Crime can indeed pay very well in reality but it’s best not to promote that narrative since rampant criminality can end in social collapse when practiced en masse. A couple of other examples of pretty obvious (and beneficial) social conditioning that have been promoted very successfully via direct and indirect incentives/disincentives: seat belts, and smoking.
Right now there is a meme that masculine behavior is bad. Feminine behavior is encouraged, masculine behaviors are largely discouraged as “toxic” and/or “aggressive”.
Females are represented in primary and secondary education systems far more than males (including administration positions). Boys are more often medicated, and are growing up in a state of confusion as to how they are expected to act. Furthermore, the ques that society is giving them are in direct contrast to what is effective in the sexual marketplace.
The above is pretty obvious to the casual observer. Women might post online about the “sexiness” of Mr Rogers, but take a look at the prevailing romance novels and it’s pretty clear that Mr Rogers is not a real “romantic” draw for most women. What women by and large claim to be attracted to and what they actually demonstrate that they are attracted to are often in pretty stark contrast.
Sexuality is very important to men, their sex drives and by and large higher than women’s (it’s a testosterone thing…women with high T levels have higher libidos). Raised in the current environment under the prevailing themes (myths) they are fed about what women actually find attractive, many feel lied to (with good reason). Some men have lost their wives and families for getting this wrong (the “I love you but I’m not in love with you” bit is usually a large part of that…it means “I’m not attracted to you”).
By contrast, they find that when they practice other behaviors, they have success. This isn’t because women prefer “assholes”, it’s because women (in spite of what they might say) prefer men who are masculine and exhibit masculine traits. But often enough this manifests itself as the asshole demonstrating comparative success.
Now, I’m with the folks who say women don’t like assholes/criminals. It’s pretty obvious there aren’t a bunch of Victoria Secret models waiting for conjugal visits outside the prisons. However, they do like masculine traits in men, and that’s not just muscles, it’s behavioral dominance. And it’s true of most mammals.
Women, too, are confused about what they want because society is telling them it is wrong to want these traits. So we get a bunch of confused women and frustrated men. The frustrated men look for solutions and often get angry if and when they learn these things because they feel they’ve been seriously misled. Women tell themselves they are “dating the bad boys” and “marrying the good guys”…often they experience so little of the “masculine” in real life their sexual needs are not met so they start to desire dominance in the bedroom. That’s a good part of the fuel for the “new” BDSM fad. Women seem to crave the masculine dominance in their private lives in direct proportion to how bankrupt it is in their non-private life. For women it is increasingly difficult to find a good man who is masculine enough to attract them…because masculinity has become so anathema, “good guys” have started to try to avoid it. I think that’s also part of the draw for women toward man in traditionally “masculine” career professions (firefighters, soldiers, and so forth).
There are other, more direct issues that folks in the sphere are concerned with, pretty much centered around different types of litigation. When held up to scrutiny, a lot of their concerns on this front have merit (example, what I mentioned above about the elimination of presumption of innocence).
Stating all of this, and pointing out inconsistencies and outright injustices is frowned upon in culture today. A lot of these frustrated men find solace by discussing their observations in the “mano”sphere. Much of it is frank and pretty raw. Yes (again) it can be a dark environment. I don’t read Heartiste or RoK (they don’t permit women to post, so I don’t read). There’s a lot of negativity, but there’s a lot of negativity in a lot of places.
I prefer levity and positivity myself. But I do recognize there aren’t a lot of places for men to go and hash this particular stuff out and compare observations online, outside of the sphere.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of negativity, but there’s a lot of negativity in a lot of places.
If I’m not mistaken, a similar statement was issued recently (or could have been issued) by the ISIS spokesman, Ashit Al-Bullradi.*
That was as clever a use of soothing minimization and responsibility deflection as I have ever seen. You should be in politics, Liz.
Levity aside, your comment is a decent encapsulation of most of the stated concerns of the manosphere, some of which are legit, and some based on a faulty interpretation of reality (and a few smacking of outright disaster, cognitive, emotional, and moral). If I had (have) more time, I’d take a stab at (some) of them.
What’s most striking, though, is what you left out of your synopsis. It is (wait for it) the seething misogyny.
Why is that? Do you chuck it up to that inevitable “negativity” that’s “in a lot of places”?
If so, then please tell what other places can you name that, like manosphere, are notorious for their stark, unrelenting, and vile misogyny that’s not just a by-product but THE reason (or one of the main ones) for their existence?
In what other places can you hear 24/7 that women are irrational, greedy, selfish, opportunistic, driven by base instincts, solipsistic, hypergamous dick-jumping, barely human creatures (being a lazy feemale, I quote myself) who crave and/or deserve to be used and abused? That’s a serious question. Please name such a place or places.
Even ISIS has a greater respect for and appreciation of women’s humanity than the manosphere in its totality. Just ask Abbull Al-Shitradi.* Or that other guy.
*Not a real person.
LikeLike
“In what other places can you hear 24/7 that women are irrational, greedy, selfish, opportunistic, driven by base instincts, solipsistic, hypergamous dick-jumping, barely human creatures (being a lazy feemale, I quote myself) who crave and/or deserve to be used and abused? That’s a serious question. Please name such a place or places.”
I didn’t say “other places are more misogynistic!” (although, yeah, I’m sure there are such places…in bowels of the internet I don’t wish to scrub. I know this because the sphere is not a monolithic place and people do leave in frustration…and not always frustration over negativity. There are some serious nihilists in the bowels of the world wide web)
I said “There’s a lot of negativity, but there’s a lot of negativity in a lot of places”.
What places? Pretty much anywhere you want to discuss something contentious with a lot of people and no moderation. Left leaving folk can actually be pretty intolerant, it’s not just the right leaning folk. And feminists can be very very negative too.
“Just ask Abbull Al-Shitradi”
That was well done. HT.
LikeLike
Pingback: Stuff and nonsense | ColorStorm
“Insanity writes about these poor misguided women who erroneously believe that they’ve been raped by their husbands — because they’ve been brainwashed by feminism, you know — on her own blog (she has at least two posts about it, if I recall). She has also said as much on the BGR blog. If I weren’t so thoroughly repulsed by it, I would go back there and post a link, but I can’t. You can easily find it, I’m sure.”
May I just say it’s a shame that Emma has so quickly placed me in a box, defined, and dismissed me? It’s also somewhat funny, I mean I can’t very well be a proper red pill girl when I in fact have managed to get myself kicked off every ‘spherian blog I’ve ever been on. Nor is it particularly fair to toss me in with the people like Sunshine Mary or even worse, people like Sarah’s Daughter and Dragonfly who still flit about the internet warning people about how sinful and horrible I am. BGR, Larry’s blog, took me all of one short comment to get kicked out of.
I say it’s a shame, because I really do have a unique perspective on both feminism and the MRA’s, but people insist on being so trapped in their labels and stereotypes that they never want to discuss anything.
May I just correct one more thing? “There is something about those mid-to-late life “converts” to fundamentalist Christianity — and those “born again” ones — that makes them especially judgmental and smugly self-righteous.”
I was 3 years old when I first met Christ. I am not a midlife convert. All in good humor here, but Tomassi actually banned me for telling Dragonfly that I’d rather be prostitute in God’s kingdom than a hypocritical Christian woman, looking down her nose at others. So no, smugly self righteous doesn’t quite fit me.
LikeLike
“I was 3 years old when I first met Christ. I am not a midlife convert.”
Is that strictly true? You claim you were brought up and brainwashed in an atheist cult. You may imagine that your god somehow touched your life when you were little, but I expect it’s only post-conversion projection and wishful thinking.
I imagined I saw Jesus in a mirror round about that age. My post-deconversion rational brain tells me otherwise. It sits alongside the other vivid memories, such as the ghosts that had a tea party in my room and the vision I had that I was a princess from another planet destined to save my people.
I’ll have to look into Sunshine Mary and see if I find any parallels. I read through your many comments on the post that Carmen mentioned on BGR, and you certainly weren’t banned after one comment. You were positively falling over yourself to agree with him. What post were you banned on?
LikeLike
Seriously, I really did know Christ as a child and have continued to know Him even better, all through my life. I did indeed grow up among militant atheists.
Sunshine Mary is a nice woman, not as insane as some, and although her and I disagree on several matters, she’s sensible and smart.
As to BGR, of course I commented. I attempted to engage him in a discussion. I never said I only commented once on his blog, I said one comment got me banned. That one comment had to do with informing him that what he was saying was not in the bible.
LikeLike
“I never said I only commented once on his blog, I said one comment got me banned.”
Errm, shall we review what you said?
“BGR, Larry’s blog, took me all of one short comment to get kicked out of.”
So, you were saying? 😉
LikeLike
Inanity won’t answer you… She’s been caught out in another lie, and we all know what that means. Silence.
LikeLike
John you are a perpetual source of self created fog. Or does your middle name begin with G. as in Guile? JGZ?
You leave footprints of mud wherever you walk, then accuse someone else of the mess, then have the audacity to say ‘who me?’ Truly an art form.
Seriously, jz, really? C’mon do tell, you worked in the circus and provided a laff-a-minut.
C’mon violet, a little support here, you must agree. John’s straining of a gnat while swallowing the proverbial hippo just may win bingo. Much ado about nothing.
LikeLike
Promote and exercise censorship on your own blog, Colourstorm. It’s why no one reads it.
LikeLike
tkx john.
Perhaps you may also enjoy knowing that the baptist prepared his whole life for a six month ministry.
Sorta puts your idea about a’lack of numbers’ now in a different light doesn’t it…
No one reads it eh? Ah but there is one, and a very good person who makes it all worthwhile 😉
LikeLike
Your special invisible friend reads your blog?
My toaster reads mine.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tkx much jz,
and your toaster would explain why your comments resemble pop tarts…………
‘quick, with a shot like a gun, and too often burnt, and with little nourishment.’
Sorry, but u asked for it 😉
LikeLike
Might mean something if I knew what a pop tart is, Colourstorm. I’m guessing it’s just another American obesity food.
LikeLike
Obesity food might be a stretch jz, its just a quick sweet with sprinkles.
LikeLike
Hoovered down by the kilo, no doubt
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alright, IB, so you are not a ‘mid-to-late’ in life convert. It is an impression you create, though, when you speak of being raised by ‘militant’ atheists and joining church in spite of that, somewhere past your formative years.
The other part you object to is being characterized as red pill. I did not call you that. I don’t believe you are red pill, although your views are closer to those of redpillians than you are willing to admit. I gave examples of those similarities in my initial comment.
The female Christian (and not) orbiters of the sphere are not cut from the exact same cloth, but they all derive benefits from their orbiting. For some, it is sexual titillation and/or special snowflake status, along with validation of their views, which are unacceptable in society. For others, it is the status of a spiritual sage / savior, ready to offer their motherly ‘love’ and Christian enlightenment to the ‘lost boys’ the moment they realize that that’s what they need. And for all, it is an attempt to work out their personal issues and find some kind of a community, as these women do not get along with women and most men IRL. (It is probably no accident that they report highly contentious or otherwise difficult relationships with their own mothers, whom they distrust and/or look upon with contempt.)
So even though you do not see yourself in the same camp as Dragonfly etc. — and strictly speaking, you are correct — there are many similarities between you.
FWIW, I didn’t put you in a box; you are more of a mixed bag.
And, all in good humor here, but I don’t think you are ‘the worst’ Christian. You are rather typical of the lot.
LikeLike
Well Emma, I assure you I do rather well in relationships with both men and women and while my mother and my relationship may have been contentious, that is far more due to her condition than mine. Also, she does live with us, so it is not as if there is not peace and reconciliation there.
What you describe is often true, those things are what motivates some within the ‘sphere. You may not understand this, but you are close here, “For others, it is the status of a spiritual sage / savior..”
Attempt to put yourself in my shoes and consider that my faith cannot abide any false prophets, false teachings, wolves in sheep’s clothing, people trying to put themselves in Jesus Christ’s rightful place. Now consider my cultian background and how much I dislike those dynamics. What the pills do is take the language of my faith and pervert the concepts into a really poor substitution. So taking the redpill means salvation, dying to the old man means killing off your beta, becoming a new creature is alpha-sizing yourself. What they teach about marriage, submission, love, is an even worse perversion. So no, I don’t want to become their Savior, nor do I want to bathe them in motherly love. In fact, I’d like to just knock a few of them upside the head. These are so called Christians engaging in a bizarre and strange cultian distortion and deception of what it means to be a Christian. My faith compels me to say something, to attempt to engage them, to call them out. I cannot fix it, I cannot create the kind of epiphany they need, but your belief that I am rather typical of the “Christian lot” is not quite accurate. Those people are a fringe group, one I am particularly concerned about because of the deceptive and seductive nature of what they are selling. And in the process of selling that deceptive product, they give our host and others like her, easy reasons to justify non belief.
LikeLike
IB, I’m glad to hear that you love and respect your mom, as you should. 🙂
You may not understand this
I do. It is not that difficult to see and understand. We may be anonymous online, but we are transparent. Even more so than IRL.
Attempt to put yourself in my shoes and consider that my faith cannot abide any false prophets, false teachings, wolves in sheep’s clothing, people trying to put themselves in Jesus Christ’s rightful place.
Your criticisms of the hub of the misogynist sociopathy known as the manosphere are well deserved and usually on point, IB.
However, you do not go far enough in them, missing the spherians’ fundamental pathology and sometimes explicitly agreeing with it. One of the reasons for it is your adherence to beliefs that are very much in line with those of manospherians.
You just wish they were nicer in the expression of those beliefs and in their practice, but you pretty much agree with their ideological basics (the “natural” female submission and male dominance / headship, women’s “natural” emotionality and irrationality, marriage erasing the need for consent to sex, to name some of the big ones). In words of another commenter from a spherian site, you wish for “kinder, gentler alphas.” Which, in that particular framework, is like wishing for kinder, gentler Nazis.
You are critiquing one cult from the point of view of another, without noticing that your own cult is not that very different in its core beliefs. Sure, it tempers them with admonitions about love, kindness, and other good-sounding ideals, but those admonitions do not change the fact that the core beliefs of your cult are also similarly rotten. Dressing them up in the language of love does not make them any more palatable. Slavery under the yoke of “kinder, gentler” slave drivers is still slavery.
Those people are a fringe group, one I am particularly concerned about because of the deceptive and seductive nature of what they are selling. And in the process of selling that deceptive product, they give our host and others like her, easy reasons to justify non belief.
What these guys are selling is as “seductive” to thinking people as the stomach flu. I suspect that our host and “others like her” are non believers for reasons far greater and more fundamental that the existence of Christian (and not) misogynists online.
That said, the misogyny espoused by this fringe is very much in line with the misogyny of the Christian (and not only) church, which your stated beliefs confirm. It certainly does not endear people to religious belief and practice, but it is just one of many reasons, and not always the central one (although it is a biggie).
P.S. When I say that you are a typical Christian, I mean this as a clarification of your recent statement (from your blog) that I (I presume you meant me, as you referenced my comment) called you “the worst Christian.” I did not. I don’t believe you are “the worst Christian.” You’re average: not the best, not the worst. Like most of us, Christian or not. FWIW, you have many positive qualities; and others that are not so much. Like the rest of us. Christian and not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ummm. . .IB – one comment got you kicked off?? I THINK NOT. I just went through a post I remember – the one that spurred me to write to one of the commenters (the only sensible person on that thread) and pass along my compliments to her. You had a great deal to say on that thread . . lots of nonsense about obeying one’s husband. I remember it because you referred to your husband as “Dad”. Gag me. If anyone would like to run through the post, it’s called, “7 Ways To Discipline Your Wife”. That guy on BGR – and by the way, IB, his name is not Larry – is a nauseating promoter of wifely submission, revels in discussing things of a sexual nature (I swear some of those fundies are titillated beyond measure by that topic I include you in that statement, IB) and has been reported umpteen times to WordPress. . . he seems to be untouchable.
It will come as no surprise to anyone on this thread that Liz also has a great deal to say on that blog. * shudder *
You’ve got a unique perspective on feminism, all right, IB – a very negative one. You and Liz have far more in common with the mindset of the ‘spherians than you realize – it’s plain to me, anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, Liz, * shudder *. Some of the things you said to that asshat, BGR made me do that. As do many of the things IB said to him. Like I mentioned earlier to you, I cannot imagine that the fawning regard you get from people like ‘Larry’ is worth what you lose in credibility as a sensible woman.
LikeLike
Well Carmen, if I read a subject and find it interesting and want to comment I do so honestly.
I’ve been on both sides of the aisle, many times, and it has been my experience that when people agree with you they are highly likely to find you credible and sensible and when they disagree you’ve lost credibility and reason all at once.
So I am destined to disappoint. Sometimes I don’t respond, but when I do respond I answer as honestly as I can.
LikeLike
Yep, Carmen. It’s… something, isn’t it.
Keep in mind that this catty, but surprisingly insightful at times, takedown was written by one of the nastiest spherians around — and the competition for that title is fierce.
It is like a dark soap opera that quickly becomes unwatchable for lack of any sympathetic characters.
And yet that whole seventh circle of hell with its rabid inhabitants at each other’s throats — but oh-so-piously! on the part of the Desperately Submissive Housewives — still looks comparatively sane, though just barely, when juxtaposed with “Larry Solomon.” The Biblical Grand Rapist is almost in a category by himself, though he has plenty of those willing to keep him company (which is a good thing, for him, as it means he does not have to use chains — or discipline, for a change).
After his recent shot to infamy, there has been quite a bit of speculation in more evolved and non-sociopathic Christian circles whether he is a ‘real deal’ or a hoax meant to ridicule Christian fundies. There are some who continue to be convinced that BGR is a prank. A few of them are angry that the prankster has gone too far and believe he should stop already because he gives Christianity a bad name.
On a brighter side, if you’d like some comic relief, I’d suggest Sunshine Gary’s blog (not affiliated with Sunshine Mary): https://sunshinegary.wordpress.com/
It is brilliant and hilarious, though it was short-lived.
Re-reading it now makes me wonder why no one has yet written a parody of BGR. The subject is perfect for ridicule — but maybe just too sickening.
P.S. You may have noticed on Forney’s site this little nugget: “Hurt Your Wife to Show Her You Love Her”: http://mattforney.com/hurt-wife-show-love/
It is part of Forney’s fake blog, which was a parody of Christian spherians, specifically the Desperately Submissive Housewives club, with strong shades of Sunshine Mary (she did advocate physical ‘discipline’ for wives, but vehemently denied it when taken to task for it; unfortunately for her, the Internet records and remembers everything). The tragicomic aspect of this experiment was the fact that many spherians, Christian and not, took that parody seriously. Even Forney was dismayed.
LikeLike
Hi Emma,
To be perfectly honest, I only skimmed through that article I linked to; it was meant to show IB that ‘Sunshine’ Mary is anything BUT a ‘nice woman’. I cannot stand to read through that hateful rhetoric on BGR’s blog and – again – have only skimmed through a couple of blog posts; enough to make me wonder if he’s genuine. The most distressing and disturbing aspect of that blog is reading through the sycophants’ responses; particularly since most of them are women. By aligning themselves with him wholeheartedly and supporting his misogynistic attitude, they are doing a great disservice to all women – in fact, they are tacitly approving of marital rape and emotional abuse – if not outright physical abuse. If the anonymous author of BGR turns out to be a prankster, they’ve all made complete fools of themselves. (they certainly don’t have any kind of credibility with me, either way)
It’s good to know, however, that you are monitoring this and other sites so carefully. Your scrutinization and feedback is appreciated – it’s obvious you’re able to analyze the situation credibly and with expert knowledge. I commend you; I’m glad you contributed to this discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
it was meant to show IB that ‘Sunshine’ Mary is anything BUT a ‘nice woman’
All in good humor here, but nice Christian women can do all kinds of things that may appear highly questionable in the uncomprehending eyes of atheists and other heathens, including advocating abuse and rape (and not only in marriage!), and remain perfectly nice.
As long as they do it politely (and why wouldn’t they, being ever so nice?), or even better, with a cheerful attitude and plenty of smiles, and don’t forget to follow it up with “May God bless you and yours,” they are as nice as can be.
They will even pray for you, so you can see the error of your ways and stop rebelling against what’s good for you, including
rape and abusemarital duties and discipline. Yes, they are that nice. And godly.It is hard for those who, like feminists, serve Satan to understand that kind of nice godliness, but that’s because Satan clouds their minds and judgment.
I cannot stand to read through that hateful rhetoric on BGR’s blog and – again – have only skimmed through a couple of blog posts; enough to make me wonder if he’s genuine. The most distressing and disturbing aspect of that blog is reading through the sycophants’ responses; particularly since most of them are women. By aligning themselves with him wholeheartedly and supporting his misogynistic attitude, they are doing a great disservice to all women – in fact, they are tacitly approving of marital rape and emotional abuse – if not outright physical abuse.
Agree.
As to the possibility of the Biblical Grand Rapist being a prankster: I too doubt it. There is a very small chance that “Larry”‘s indeed pulling our collective finger, but it is unlikely, IMO. Even though he isn’t a spherian per se, his views are essentially no different from those of the spherian Christo-misogynists. There are others like him, in the sphere and beyond, in that special hell known as fundamentalist Christianity (and not only).
LikeLike
“The tragicomic aspect of this experiment was the fact that many spherians, Christian and not, took that parody seriously. Even Forney was dismayed.”
You’ve seen what Forney writes. Do you truly think he would have given up that parody site if it brought him a lot of traffic?
LikeLike
Do you truly think he would have given up that parody site if it brought him a lot of traffic?
Maybe or maybe not. That’s beside the point, though.
He stated his reasons for discontinuing, and they (including the difficulty of coming up with new “material” and continuing in a fake female voice) sound convincing, to me.
LikeLike
“He stated his reasons for discontinuing, and they (including the difficulty of coming up with new “material” and continuing in a fake female voice) sound convincing, to me.”
Do you think he’d admit his project was a dismal failure and never took off?
He’s among the most toxic in a genre you believe to be summarily toxic without exception but he’s tell the straight story here?
Here’s a reasonability test:
1) It wasn’t even up a whole year.
2) He started it with the intention of capitalizing on the “stupid” he perceives that exact market niche to be.
And he grew tired and frustrated because he had so many participants, readers and viewers? Really?
I saw that site ONE time, right before he admitted it was a parody piece.
I’m not sure how I got on it in the first place, but it wasn’t even worth the time to type: “You are a moron”
I can’t remember what the particpants said exactly (that too didn’t interest me enough to read very long) I only remember there weren’t many.
FWIW re his takedown of SSM. I’d read very little of SSM’s stuff before that takedown, but I had read one post about how her “husband is tiring of bedpans” so I knew he wasn’t a doctor, and I don’t think she was being deceptive there. She was also (this she didn’t mention before but mentioned later) watching three girls from another family, which made a family of five girls.
There’s a reason I don’t blog (other than OCDs, which I have and I can see spending all of my time unproductively and obsessively on something like that) the main reason is, I want anonymity. At least, as anonymous as the internet gets. I reveal things about myself online but not everything and not every detail is spelled out because that just gives someone OPSEC (operational security) details on you and they can further identify you in real life. So I sympathize with SSM on that and I don’t think she was prevaricating when she said her husband worked at the hospital.
I think I spent a total of five minutes at Red Pill Reddit for women just out of curiosity. Someone pointed it out as stupid, and implied that I was red pill and stupid too, so I checked it out. The women seemed to be trying to outdo each other and it became a little nauseating (mainly because I just see that as another form of attention whoring, “I give lots of blowjobs!” wink wink “backrubs!” “I never make anything from a jar!” kind of got to me. Kind of in a, if your kid is truly exceptional you probably don’t have it written on your bumpsticker, way.
LikeLike
“Keep in mind that this catty, but surprisingly insightful at times, takedown was written by one of the nastiest spherians around — and the competition for that title is fierce.”
I have to ask, Emma
who are you refering to as “one of the nastiest spherians around”?
BGR? I don’t think he’s a “spherian” at all.
IB? She isn’t in the sphere either.
or
ME?!?
LikeLike
I have to ask, Emma
who are you refering to as “one of the nastiest spherians around”?
BGR? I don’t think he’s a “spherian” at all.
IB? She isn’t in the sphere either.
or
ME?!?
I’m referring to the author of “this takedown,” i.e., Forney.
LikeLike
Ah, okay, thanks.
Yeah, Forney is one of the more pungent.
LikeLike
To be entirely accurate (as I’m being reminded myself), Forney hoax blog was a parody of red pill women in general, and not just their Christian subset.
LikeLike
“Sunshine Mary is a nice woman”
IB, you might want to read this; you pick some winners .. . ‘Larry’ and ‘Mary’ 🙂
http://mattforney.com/manosphere-dead-killed/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: I’m right, you’re wrong | Clare Flourish
Pingback: Hello world! | goodmarriagecentral
Pingback: Emma… | See, there's this thing called biology...