Jun 132011
 

I found this at Oz Conservative which got me thinking:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: for every provocative “slut” there must be a “manimal” with so little control over himself that he rapes.

For socons and tradcons this doesn’t just apply to sluts and rapists.  Socons and tradcons assume that when a woman sins sexually (to what socons and tradcons consider sexual sin), a man must also sin sexually, homosexuality notwithstanding.  While this is technically correct, they take this to also mean that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between female sexual sin and male sexual sin in terms of the numbers of women and men committing such sins.  While heterosexual sexual sins require a man and a woman this doesn’t mean that sexual sin is distributed equally among men or women.  Getting back to the quote above, it’s clearly absurd to say that there is a rapist for every slut out there.  In reality, there are many sluts per rapist.

The same principle applies to (what socons and tradcons consider) sexual sin in general.  Those of us who understand hypergamy know that sex is not evenly distributed among men.  We know that approximately 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women.  That means many men are going without or getting very little sex and thus committing no or little sexual sin.  On the other hand sexual sin among women is more evenly distributed.

Often you will hear socons and tradcons say that they’re against some form of sexual sin such as premarital sex equally in men and women.  Since 80% of men aren’t committing that sin at anywhere near the same rate women or alphas (the top 20% of men) are, what socons and tradcons are doing is white knighting for women (and in a way alpha males).  If socons and tradcons are going to attack (what they believe is) a sin, then they need to attack where it is happening.  By being against a sin “equally” in both men and women assumes that said sin is being committed equally by men and women and equally among men.  As we know this isn’t the case.

As bad as this is, what socons and tradcons are doing is even worse.  With their “men are supposed to lead so anything a woman does wrong is a failure of male leadership” nonsense, socons and tradcons either partially or fully excuse the sexual sin women commit because it’s the fault of some man.  Also, who is likely to be in a church on a Sunday?  The alphas, the 20% of men who are getting most of the sex, won’t be there.  The men who are in church will be from the other 80%.  Since sex among women is more evenly distributed, that means the women in church are likely to have committed sexual sin.  In other words, socons and tradcons are going after the wrong group in their churches when it comes to sexual sin.  It’s just another example of how churches are become feminized and another reason why men want less and less to do with the church.  Why would a man want to go to a place where he got blamed for something he didn’t do?

On top of this socons and tradcons will white knight for women who have sexually sinned a lot in the churches by trying to shame men into marrying them.  These white knights delude themselves into thinking their female coreligionists are innocent and sexually inexperienced when the opposite is true.  The men who decide to have nothing to do with the churches know better.  They know that churches have universally become anti-male and vehicles for white knighting.  They know that the women in the churches are just as bad as those outside of the church and that the churches will do nothing about female sexual sin except blame men.

  20 Responses to “A Case Study In The Problems Of Socon/Tradcon Thinking”

  1. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: for every provocative “slut” there must be a “manimal” with so little control over himself that he rapes”.

    A moment’s thought is enough to disprove the stupidity of that argument. If every slut got raped, Western women would have to go back to wearing burkhas.

    Those of us who understand hypergamy know that sex is not evenly distributed among men. We know that approximately 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women. That means many men are going without or getting very little sex and thus committing no or little sexual sin. On the other hand sexual sin among women is more evenly distributed.

    Anybody who believes men commit more sexual sin than women doesn’t understand mathematics very well. Since the numbers of men and women are approximately equal, the mean number of sexual encounters between men and women must be about the same. That doesn’t tell the whole story though; with men you have a small number of outliers that get a disproportionate amount of sex, which drags up the mean. To get a more accurate picture of which sex is “sinning” more you need to look at the median.

  2. I came across a book a few weeks ago called “Why Men Hate Going To Church” written by the leader of a church in Alaska. The guy basically reads the riot act to the feminized and female-pedestaling modern church.

    I’m an atheist and even I enjoyed reading it. He doesn’t mention feminism by name, and he doesn’t touch on Church sexual hypocrisy at all, but he is a perceptive dude with a bold masculine vision.

  3. Here is another case study:

    During the first Republican primary debate, Senator Rick Santorum was asked about a comment he made that was critical of feminism, which Chris Wallace insinuated was why Santorum lost a race in 2006.

    Witness a cowardly white knight stumbling over himself to say he pedestalizes working women, and just wanted to ensure that home makers were properly pedestalized as well.

    This is the extent of mainstream social conservatives’ defense of family.

  4. Another attack on tradcons? What fun.

    Most of the above is a critique of the modern church, which seems a little strange, as Roman Catholicism in particular is often lambasted by the feminists for being the single biggest obstacle to the completion of their goals (contraception, abortion on demand etc).

    • The Catholic Church along with all of the other churches oppose less than 1% of feminism. The Catholic Church makes a huge stink about abortion but not about anything where feminism negatively impacts men such as no fault divorce or boys getting drugged in school.

      Religious women benefit from divorce so the churches don’t oppose divorce but they think that they don’t benefit from abortion so the churches are against abortion.

      Churches are promoting an anti-abortion feminism.

      • Unless the new Pope has changed things while I wasn’t looking, the RC church opposes all forms of divorce, and by extension no fault divorce. Where did this 1% figure come from? The RC church, and many other Protestant denominations, oppose abortion, contraception, divorce, entry of women into the clergy…A pretty complete list of everything the feminists would like to see become the norm. They’re not so loud as regards affirmative action and other radical monstrosities, but like traditional conservatives, they are generally supportive of antifeminism, in deed if not in word.

        • And yet the Catholic Church does not protest divorce. They protest abortion all the time so that tells us that the church really isn’t against divorce. Given how many divorce support groups there are in the Catholic Church it’s clear they aren’t really against divorce especially since those support groups are for women who have for the most part initiated their divorces and not wronged men.

          Issues of female clergy are meaningless because the current male only clergy of the church are nothing but feminized white knights.

  5. ”Since 80% of men aren’t committing that sin at anywhere near the same rate women or alphas (the top 20% of men) are, what socons and tradcons are doing is white knighting for women (and in a way alpha males).”

    ”With their “men are supposed to lead so anything a woman does wrong is a failure of male leadership” nonsense, socons and tradcons either partially or fully excuse the sexual sin women commit because it’s the fault of some man.”

    ”They know that churches have universally become anti-male and vehicles for white knighting. They know that the women in the churches are just as bad as those outside of the church and that the churches will do nothing about female sexual sin except blame men.”

    This all fits, part-and –parcel, with my own experience over ~3 decades since I started noticing the “real” (yet, for a long time unexplained/explainable) behaviors of teenaged girls in church.

    Yet, when you point out something so painfully obvious to the SoCon/TradCon contingent, they will immediately launch into shaming, spinning, and dissembling, in what seems a desperate attempt to prevent themselves from having to think about and deal with an uncomfortable reality – women are not any better than men, and they may even be worse, as far as sexual sins go.

    Good post. I think that keeping the heat on them WRT to their misguided pedestalizing of women will help to shatter their illusion in the long-run. I wish that when I was younger I’d have had the courage to call out the blatant hypocrisy I saw on a continual basis with regard to Churchianity and the behavior of women (vs that of men).

  6. Wow, yeah – this was a good analysis.

    This is the age-old “for every she-beast, there is a man-beast”.

    It basically princess-izes women.

    From the 80-20 split, it looks like the ratio is more like 4:1

  7. After posting this remark:

    “Yet, when you point out something so painfully obvious to the SoCon/TradCon contingent, they will immediately launch into shaming, spinning, and dissembling, in what seems a desperate attempt to prevent themselves from having to think about and deal with an uncomfortable reality – women are not any better than men, and they may even be worse, as far as sexual sins go.”

    Not long after, I came across a prime example by one Bartholomeu in response to a post by Alcuin:

    “You are starting to sound like a gamer or a MRA whom blames every liberal ill on traditional conservatives.

    Of course you’re blind the fact that MRA blame conservatives because well they are LIBERALS.”

    Almost as if on cue…

  8. Pro-male,

    The one problem with the argument you’ve set out is that you apply it as a blanket criticism of all conservatives, including tradcons.

    At my tradcon site the analysis is not based on “equal sin”. It’s not even based on sin. It’s my belief that feminism encouraged women to be autonomous of men; that this led to a deferral of family formation; that the newly sexually “liberated” women tended in their 20s to reject stable relationships with family type men in favour of more casual encounters; and that how men relate to women today is an adaptation to the situation men found themselves in back in the 1980s/90s.

    You can agree or disagree with the analysis, but it’s not based on white knighting or trying to find some equivalence in sin. It’s a political analysis which begins with the effects on relationships of “sexually liberated” female behaviour.

    • Slwerner has already covered part of my response. Yes I am making this a blanket criticism of conservatives because feminism has marched from the left to the right of the political spectrum down into the traditionalists. The entire political spectrum is feminist so its no surprise that conservatives from the moderates to the traditionalists are all as misandrist and hostile to men as the left is.

      This example was started from a commenter at your site who was transferring blame for sins women commit on to men absolving women of responsibility for their sin. It is one example of many. Meaningless claptrap about “autonomy” or no true scotsman fallacies about who is or isn’t a traditionalist do not change the fact that traditionalism is filled with white knights who are as bad as any male feminist and misandrist women who are as bad as any leftist woman.

  9. Mark Richardson – “At my tradcon site the analysis is not based on “equal sin”.”

    Mark,

    Do note that the quotation above was by a commentator at your site, and was never mis-attributed to you.

    You are not personal guilty of the behavior, but it is hard not to notice that almost anytime any of the various pathologies of modern women are being addressed, someone self-identifying as conservative (of some stripe) will show up to try to refocus the discussion towards selectively male pathologies.

    I believe that PM/AFT has done a good job in deconstructing one such example.

  10. Mark Richardson will never tell a man, not to marry, he is in the ‘man it up’ crowd with the rest of them.

  11. You can triangulate with the radfems against the sexpozfems. After all, the radfems and sexpozfems triangulate with the tradcons and the socons.

    Also:
    http://tothecurb.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/slutwalk-a-stroll-through-white-supremacy

  12. PMAFT, not sure if you’ve heard, but I’m blogging again.

    http://mens-rights.blogspot.com/

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this: