This is Detis list of arguments that female traditional conservatives make. There are a series of errors — and hence it is available for a good fisking
1. The manosphere is full of bitter and angry men.
No. Females hate male violence. Not just from the manosphere, but from any man. When there is injustice, men get angry. Women, instead, harness male anger and male violence through the power of the courts.
2. Because of their bitterness and anger, these men are dangerous and violent, and therefore must be controlled (and punished if necessary).
Women are as violent as men. It is better to talk about dangerous people (who exist) not say that all of any class are dangerous.
3. These men are immoral and stand athwart conventional Judeo-Christian morality because they associate and identify ideologically with the Game/pickup artist sect of the manosphere.
Well, yeah, right. There have always been seducers. Casanova was not living in the feminist age. There have always been women who will be seduced. The skills of seduction have not changed. What has changed is that they are on the internet, and available to more men.
4. Game is immoral, even in the marriage context, because it is grounded in fraud, deceit and manipulation of women.
Half agree. Game implies that you are acting like or as a leader. However, if you act that way, you become that way. And… in the meantime, the introverts will quietly meet and be happy ever after.
5. Assuming it is true that Game allows men to exploit women’s psychological, sexual and sociobiological composition to ultimately manipulate them into sex (whether married or not), it proves that men are less moral than women, and that women occupy a higher moral plane than men. Women are pure. Men are base.
We are all equally evil. We are all responsible for our sins. Did you expect a Calvinist to say otherwise?
6. Men are much more to blame for the current SMP mess than women. Even though women were freed from prior legal, social and medical/risk of pregnancy constraints to have sex with whomever they wanted, men are more to blame because they took advantage of it. Men should have restrained themselves from the sexual smorgasbord the women put on offer.
No, women are moral beings, and their sexual behaviour is a moral issue. Weak and circular argument.
7. Men who aren’t having sex should not be complaining about it. Christian single men are supposed to be chaste. Period, Full stop. Never mind that they see women — including the women in Church — doing literally whatever they want with whomever they want.
This is an argument for modesty. Modesty is a form of charity, because men are visual. And modesty intensifies the sexuality of marriage, because “that is only for my husband” makes women feel special, cherished, and worthy.
8. Christian single women are supposed to be chaste too, but if they are not, it is ultimately some man’s fault. Shaming sluts is diametrically opposed to Christian tenets of love, forgiveness and redemption, so we won’t do it. All she has to do is repent, come to Church and say she’s sorry for letting some man (men) ravage her body, and God will do the rest. We’ll leave aside for later the sticky wicket of natural consequences. Someone else will have to deal with that. We deal in the spiritual, and that’s all we need to do.
Restatement of previous argument, and still an error.
9. The divorce culture, the current legal setup in which women are encouraged to divorce for the flimsiest of reasons, men are impoverished and income streams to divorced women are arranged, the destruction of families: these things are bad. But men going around having premarital sex and deflowering precious paragons of virtue is worse, even if the paragons were begging for it. And any man who does this deserves to have a woman divorce and impoverish him, because that’s just and fair, and our God is a God of justice.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Chastity allows for discernment of character. Once you have sex, you are emotionally bound to the partner (unless you have seared your conscience) and your ability to be discerning goes.
10. This so-called MGTOW business is merely men becoming parasites upon society. MGTOWs do nothing and ultimately give nothing back to the society in which they live and feed upon. They need to leave the MGTOW lifestyle, man up, quit playing video games and working at the comic book store, and marry the “reformed sluts” on which we are slapping those coats of Kilz. That way, these men can contribute to society in a way we believe is most appropriate. But if things go bad, or she decides she’s not haaaappy, or decides to EatPrayLove, he’s on his own. It’s his job to be nice to her, be sensitive to her needs, and submit himself to Jesus, the Ultimate Boyfriend and Lover of His/Her Soul. And if she leaves, it’s not our fault. We did our part. We had her pray the prayer. Hey, he f**ked up, he trusted us.
Going your own way is a reaction to the society we are in. It is a secular form of the monaster, and men are moving there, as in Ancient Rome they fled to the monks in the desert while Rome crumbled..
11. (Courtesy of FlirtyIntroverts) If men have it so bad and they feel they cannot get married because of unfair divorce laws, then they need to band together and change the divorce laws to make them fairer. The fact that the vast majority of men are not agitating for wholesale divorce reform means (1) they don’t think they are being treated unfairly; (2) the men who do get screwed got what’s coming to them; and/or (3) men still have all the political and economic power in this country and if they really wanted reform it would happen tomorrow.
The men who have been through a divorce are living in the shadow of coercion. They are one missed support payment away from prison. All men are one complaint away from losing their job. You cannot agitate politically from a position of no power.
That 104k limit on support must be out of date. I left my job last year, got a nice big whack of holiday pay etc. I was assessed for 115k by IRD. According to their website, the maximum is set at 2.5 times the average pay rate, which seems to be about 54k.
Formula was correct as of November 2010. We negotiated out of the clutches of IRD then. But laws, as you know, change
Better than the Chick ones that existed when I was a teenager
There was a noticeable decline in romance comic quality that began in the late 60′s [thus, these issues have a lower value]. Darn you women’s liberation movement; “free love” hippie-feminists make terrible romance protagonists!
Comic book wise, my childhood was decent. By the late 90′s “chick comics” meant manga, and my father would pick them up for me on business trips to Tokyo. Since manga series are often weekly, I used to beg my Dad to go on more business trips. “Daddy, it’s a cliffhanger! I need to know what happens!”
Heh. Manga the son reads are only a week old and have been translated.
Check the links, And keep the comics coming… Better than the Chick ones that existed when I was a teenager.
@Chris:
Sorry Chris, I’m a bit moody today [prednisone, bleh]. I generalized too much.
I don’t really need marriage advice – I come from a good family; my mother and father may own omamori [Shinto prayer amulets], but they raised me well enough to know how to properly treat a husband.
It’s just, I’m frustrated by all the terrible marital advice I had been given in the name of Christianity. For example, Back in high school I took a marriage preparation course [it was my school's alternative to sex-ed; you know, 'cause sex only happens within marriage] and it basically taught me that any mistake I make within a marriage, it will end up being my husband’s fault. I really need to find my old text-book and scan some of the pages; the misandry was frightening. It effects my faith – I’m upset Christianity is awash in such nonsense.
Anyway, concerning marriage advice, have you checked out my blog? I’ve been debunked a lot of neo-traditionalism. I’ve posted scans from my old [1940's/1950's] comics. I never thought my Jack Kirby illustrated romance comics would ever come in handy…
No, I did not.
Does not happen in my family. My Mum will give advice. My daughter has just got some advice (from her Mum in law, and it was good advice). One of the very roles of older Christian women — and let’s face it, Alte is not “old”. It would be better to say “post-menopausal women” within the bible is to “ Teach the younger women to love their husbands and childen If that is not happening, then the church is not functioning as it ought.
Well, I’m a guy, so I would not know (nor should I). I do know that the culture is against celibacy. I have been told by a number of women that I would be no freaking use as a boyfriend because I don’t want to be in bed with them on date three.
Which is one reason why I have not had a date for years…
Look. Alte is about 30. You are about 20… and the problem I guess is that women who are say 45 or 50 grew up in a time when the dating scene was somewhat noxious (I lived through it) but nothing like it is now. So they don’t know… It is a bit like rediscovering Yiddish or Cherokee a generation after it stopped being a language anybody spoke daily. The younger generation are having to rediscover the older ways of life.
I’m not sure who to refer to. The only author who I know is good on this is Edith Schaeffer… who was born in about 1900 in China!
Talk (seriously, talk) with Elspeth and Alte. Talk to them about the care and feeding of husbands, being attractive to them
Not really. I called Elsbeth out on it back in October.
Hestia was the best traditionalist blogger. Her Spearhead article “Conservative Misandry” really nailed the problems within modern conservative Christianity.
— as experienced women and yes, they have flamed BF —
Chris, you do realize older Christian women are incapable of giving nice helpful advice to younger Christian women? In fact, I honestly don’t know one kind decent older Christian woman [Well, besides my Mom. But she's more of a Shinto-Buddhist these days - she distanced herself from the church after I got sick...] The only relationship advice I’ve ever been given by female traditionalists is: “You’re a woman. Keep your mouth shut and look pretty. Find yourself a good Christian man that will appreciate your submissiveness and do all the important work.” …surely there’s more to a healthy marriage than sitting around all day and having my future husband provide for me?
Anyway, all of this is merely a symptom of a larger, underlying issues: young Christian couples receive very little, if any, guidance from fellow Christians. Male or female. No-one seems to care. Well, people complain about the high divorce rates within Christianity, but they don’t actually do anything to prepare young Christian couples for marriage. & the few pieces of marital advice young Christians do receive is malignant.
@ Betty Paige:
I had problems with Dalrock too. His blog wasn’t very helpful – these days he mostly panders to his MRA readers. I’ve noticed he’s particularly nasty to any female commenters who also comment on Susan Walsh’s site. & I’m sorry you aren’t close with your father
Betty, do you have an AIM? If you’d like, We could talk.
Traditional Christianity is in a Lenten break. Talk (seriously, talk) with Elspeth and Alte. Talk to them — as experienced women and yes, they have flamed BF — about the care and feeding of husbands, being attractive to them.
Read the (about monthly comments) when Alte is clearly wanting. it. now. And how she comments the next day with a much more cheerful disposition. And then, remember that she is chaste.
Now, within those rules we can live. But asking any man to be a monk in marriage or a woman to be a nun, is simply cruel. In fact, read St Paul on this point — on one preaches this because stroppy women start screaming at them.
And many good Christian women cut their men off. I do no have a clue about Mrs Dalrock and Dalrock. But I do know that if you stop leading as a male — playing “married game” if you will, you get treated with contempt, and that kills passion.
Oh, and the way to get people around is to ask interesting questions. Alte did it to me one day, then the cheeky youngster used it as a exampler of how to trap (High IQ) men.
Finally, the manosphere is male space. We are not nice to each other. If you step in, do not expect consensus. Expect opposition, deconstruction of ideas, personal abuse… nothing personal. Iron sharpens Iron. Not gentleness. This place — less so. I have removed some posts when it gets beyond my level of civility.
Think of a querulous old scribe. If you dont’ offend him, you will do OK.
Dalrock was one of the men who flamed me though… Their argument is why stay chaste if Christian women aren’t staying chaste. I care about the truth too much to let stupid statements like that stand unchallenged. I’m really not one of “those” tradcon women, but once you bring out the argument that single people should be chaste under all circumstances, you get tarred with all kinds of nasty insults. Which makes me question whether some of these guys are really Christians at all. I understand the despair over the current marriage market – as BF points out, chaste women don’t have it any better. Most Christian guys are just trying to get in your pants the same as godless men.
Some men have a real bugaboo about being corrected – my father does, but my boyfriend/fiance does not. Guess which one hates me. Although if my own father hates me then can I expect any better from the manosphere.
Betty P
The issue of Chasity in the main part of the manosphere is much more about invol. celibacy — ie not being able to date, or being continually rejected by women. At the same time the Pick up artists are talking about the dark arts of seduction — in part as a means of getting control of the dating situation and making it non toxic for men.
If you have no faith and you consider our concerns about God and morality outmoded — that is you are a postmodern man — then there is but managed pleasure without consequences. The aim is to run a soft harem, or at least have a friend with benefits, but not end up married to them — or trapped into the domestic violence laws. Or go your own way.
This part of the manosphere sees Christians, particularly marriage minded Christians, as mugs. A fair number of those people were married, and have been taken to the cleaners. Some of us (well, I’m divorced) married in the church, thought we were marrying women who were virtuous — but things changed, and we ended up going through the divorce courts.
Chastity is difficult enough when you are a virgin. It is really hard when you are not one. Outside the church, the only arguments that work are around (a) not breeding (b) not living with (c) avoiding women… and these arguments aer made by MGTOW. If you are Christian, then the traditional men (Dalrock, Elusive Wapati etc) would argue for marriage — but we are being quite counter-cultural.
The anger comes from the sense (which most men have) that they will be rejected, be alone… but the risk of relationships is too high. For most men prefer a live woman over any form of print or electrons.
I will not speak about other nations, nut in NZ there is an assumption of shared paretning and if you have children over 40% of the time there will be no child support. Otherwise it is a certain percentage of income less 17 000 to a maximum of 104 000 pa. Pre tax.
You can, in New Zealand, elect to waive child support as part of a financial settlement (which is what I did — I needed other agreements).
However, in the event of a domestic disturbance, the police can instantly order you to leave the house (and be arrested if you return) and require you to attend a non violence course. And this is almost unversally applied to the male regardless of whom has the care of the children.
Each state of the US, of course, is different. (As is the UK: there has been many a woman who deliberately divorces under UK laws because it is in her interest rather than NZ or Australian laws)
I’ve made this argument on several manosphere or peripheral blogs, and every time I get insulted/flamed/kicked off for saying that, get accused of being one of those tradcon females, etc etc. Any idea why that might be happening, and why such a violent reaction to it? I have a few of my own ideas, just wondering if you had any input.
Well, a lot of tradcon women have…less than chaste pasts; “born again virgins” with high partners counts seeking good Christian men to marry. For example, PMATF [the man who writes the blog Chris linked to] met a woman in church who outright admitted to converting to Christianity solely as a means to meet marriage-minded Christian men. She didn’t care about Jesus, or genuinely seek repentance for her past indiscretions – it was all just a scheme to meet guys. Understandably, a lot of men on the blogosphere feel like women use Christianity [and it's tradcon values] solely as a form of deception.
Speaking as a young engaged Christian virgin, I understand their frustration. I’ve been virgin shamed by devout Christian women, I was once even told no-man would want to date a girl who waits until marriage.
The men who have been through a divorce are living in the shadow of coercion. They are one missed support payment away from prison. All men are one complaint away from losing their job. You cannot agitate politically from a position of no power.
I don’t mean to sound ignorant – but do divorced women have to file for child support? Wouldn’t they be better off sorting matters-out outside of the court? I mean, if your ex-husband is in jail, it’s not like he’ll be able to pay you anyway.
Question for you: I lurk around manosphere/traditional gender roles and I’m mostly on the same page with them. I agree with your assessment of these arguments. This one -> “Two wrongs do not make a right. Chastity allows for discernment of character.”
I’ve made this argument on several manosphere or peripheral blogs, and every time I get insulted/flamed/kicked off for saying that, get accused of being one of those tradcon females, etc etc. Any idea why that might be happening, and why such a violent reaction to it? I have a few of my own ideas, just wondering if you had any input.