Apr 102013
 

At least I hope for his sake that he’s learned this lesson.  After all, Tom Matlack picked the hard way to learn it.

As reported by A Voice For Men, Tom Matlack has left The Good Man Mangina Project.  What happened here?  Tom Matlack is the founder of The Good Mangina Project.  Matlack had a severe slap from the reality of feminism when it comes to men, namely that a man can never be mangina enough for feminists.  Many manginas have been doubling down on their white knighting over the last few years, and Matlack was no exception.

What did all of Matlack’s white knighting get him?  Absolutely nothing.  He got accused by feminists of running a MRA “infested”, porn-loving, rape apologist website.  The Good Mangina Project was completely taken over by women wondering where the “good” men are (in addition to feminists) making it incoherent babble like Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart “Reformed” Sluts.  Matlack like any other mangina couldn’t do enough for feminists.  He was still an evil penis bearing man to them.  That was never going to change no matter how much he supplicated before feminists.

What happened to Tom Matlack was inevitable.  Eventually, every mangina will come face to face with the reality that they can never be anything other than an evil man to feminists.  The only question is whether that mangina will accept that reality or go into denial.  For Tom Matlack’s sake, I hope he has picked the former, but I would not be surprised if he choose the latter.

  80 Responses to “Tom Matlack Discovers That He Can Never Be Mangina Enough For Feminists”

  1. I get what you’re saying here but there’s one counterproductive term I see in the analysis, which btw is spot on. Namely the fact that we still reinforce male disposability by the use of the terms “mangina”.

    First off, I’ll say that I understand completely what is meant by a mangina – a completely self-depricating, utterly placating male feminist. In this regard, what is meant by the term is completely reasonable.

    However the problem comes when you analyse the way male disposability has been policed in society traditionally – namely through men policing other men.

    The phrases “grow a pair”, “harden up”, and “man up” [by the nature of what “manhood” is a euphemism for], all emasculate men who deviate from a social norm based on their genitalia. “Mangina” [translation: “i’m going to shame you into silence by accusing you of having ‘lady bits’ “] operates using the same set of social policing mechanics.

    Now people might unthinkingly as “what’s the big deal”, to which I’d point them to the plight of male victims of rape, domestic violence and pedophilia. The reason there is such a culture of shame and silence preventing male victims from coming forward is precisely because they are socially policed by men in this manner. Even more feminist agendas such as primary aggressor laws are more often than not enforced by white knights. A man who is a survivor of DV is often told to “take a teaspoon of cement and harden the **** up!” A male rape survivor is presumed to be in the closet because he didn’t see himself as getting lucky [“because ‘real men’ will ALWAYS take it when it’s on offer”] .

    Meanwhile male pedophilia survivors are considered to have “become a man” by many in society when the predator is female – to the point where 12 year old boys are expected to “man up to their responsibilities” when family courts order 12 year old boys to pay child support to the female pedophiles that raped them.

    The problem inherent with this is that the use of the term “mangina” actually further normalises, rather than rejects, this form of policing male disposability. If we’re serious about changing society to one where men are treated with compassion and dare I say it, like human beings, this form of misandrist social brutalisation needs to be rejected. Certainly a term which sums up what a completely self-depricating, utterly placating male feminist is is handy, however surely it’s possible to find a term which avoids normalising a significant and fundamental source of misandry in society.

    Yes I realise how tempting and seemingly effective the use of the term mangina is, but it’s also the equivalent of using a fuel air bomb instead of a sniper rifle to assassinate someone. Yes, a fuel air bomb will take out a person, but it’ll also wipe out alot of innocent people in the process.

    The question has to be asked here – does a quick and easy shot at feminism justify further marginalising some of the most marginalised and unjustly treated men in society? If the answer is yes, then we have serious problems as a community.

    • As one who has often used the term mangina in the very way you point out it is intended, I find that I must agree that it is not a particularly useful term.

      While I think that your conflation of mangina with the very real problem of societies view of male as disposable is an over-stretch, I believe the term does cause unnecessary confusion – not for those who use it (as you point out, for us, it’s meaning is well understood), but for those about whom it is used.

      To those who are not familiar with the common terms of the MAndrosphere, the term mangina is more likely to invoke a sense of that what is meant by the word is a description of effeminate behavior on the part of a man (I’ve personally encountered such reaction when I’ve used the word with others who were not previously aware of it). If those of whom the term is applied and those who know that person, but not the term, if the mangina in question is not actually effeminate in behavior, it is bound to be seen as mis-applied towards that person.

      While many manginas do present as rather un-masculine in nature, even men who are otherwise quite masculine in their behaviors can never-the-less be quite supplicating when it comes to women they wish to please.

      Thus, while Al Bundy’s mangina has served as a useful way for those in the know to differentiate and describe men who seek to serve women in a supplicating way, it is still not particularly useful outside of the sphere.

      Unfortunately, the specific set of pathetic behaviors engendered by the term truly beg for an easy way to label them. Thus, i>mangina is likely to hang around unless and until someone comes up with an adequate short-hand replacement.

      Now, just to be sure to set the record straight, I certainly did not mean to diminish the very real concern regarding the prevailing sense of male disposability, I simply don’t feel that the term mangina does anything to further a poison which continues on it’s own long-running momentum. Indeed, aside from many masculine-presenting white-knight “tough guys”, some of the biggest proponents of the idea of male disposability are those who we’ve been calling manginas. They’re the sort who are all too happy to throw their fellow men under the bus to try to enhance their own reputations with women.

      If the term mangina could, in fact, foster a societal urge towards the specific “disposal” of those we would thus label, I’d actually be in support of doing just that. Fact is, I don’t believe that it can achieve any such goal, even if that were the intent of it’s use.

      • While I appreciate what you’re saying, there are two glaring problems I still see.

        First of, regardless of what you feel, the term is still an instance of genitalia based male shaming, which is how male disposability has been policed. If we’re serious about ending male disposability then such a mechanism shouldn’t be used regardless of how easy a shot it is. At some point, society will wake up to male disposability and how it is facilitated/policed. When they do, we’re going to look like a pack of hypocrites as a movement if the term is still being used.

        Furthermore with it being such an easy label to use and with human nature being to generally take the path of least resistence; realistically we’re not going to see an alternative while we still keep the term on the table as an option. Conversely, necessity is the mother of all invention and so taking the term off the table is far more likely to yield an alternative than giving people an easy way out and continuing to use it.

        However to put my money where my mouth is so to speak, I’ll offer up “self-depricating lemming” as a possible alternative. Yes it;s longer but it gives feminists no ammo to fire back (unlike “mangina”) and being a very visual label, is much harder to shrug off. Surely if we’re serious about debunking the feminist “knuckle-dragger” myth, a few extra key strokees shouldn’t be a big deal.

        Secondly though, what you’ve said about it only being targeted at male feminists as as accurate as claims the “misogynist” these days is nothing more than an accurate label of someone with a pathological hatred of women. The fact is that these days, “mangina” has become just as much a shaming tool for tradcons in the manosphere as “misogynist” has for feminists.

        These days “mangina” doesn’t just mean male feminist – it means anyone who deviates from a machismo or tradcon position with men’s rights or dares to point out that in amongst the mountain of feminist lies there might be the odd truth we might need to consider where victimised men who even tend to fall through the cracks of the manosphere are concerned. I’ve personally witnessed it. Heck I’ve been on the receiving end of it.

        Those of us who have been in the manosphere long enough know all too well that a circular firing squad exists. The term “mangina” has been all too readily fired on genuine MRAs who are forward thinking and therefore as anti-tradcon as they are anti-feminist.

        The problem with leaving it in play is the same problem with mistaking feminists as allies of mens rights. As long as feminists and those they influence are able to misapply the term “misogynist” and tradcons are able to do the same with “mangina” with equal impunity, then the manosphere will be split down the middle between closet feminists and tradcons. When we get to that point, men lose either way. Under the masculine paradigm of either, male victims of violence, sexual violence and destitution will be callously disregarded and mocked and subjected to more of the same injustice they are now. We’re have a limited ability to end the misapplication of the term “misogynist” however we’re in a place where we have a significant ability to change the usage of the term “mangina”.

        The question it ultimately boils down to though is do we want a society unlike any we’ve every had in history where men are valued and respected for their humanity as opposed to their utility, or do we want a tradcon society where things go back to how they were (where we get smoke blown up our asses instead of scron poured on us, but ultimately we’re still less than human in society’s mind)?

        • ” it’s lno different to some in the manosphere, say, adopting “patriarchal theory” because it was deemed to benefit men (“Good Man Project” anyone).”

          I’m not sure how to address your seemingly deep misunderstanding. Do you actually consider the “Good Man Project” to have ever been part of the Manosphere? [I once voiced my contention that the term Androsphere would be advisable over Manosphere,as anyone and everyone claiming male-oriented content could become considered part of the Manosphere] Would you also consider David Futrelle (ManBoobz) part of the Manosphere?

          I certainly hope not. Because, Futrelle is a text-book definition of the sort of mangina who advocates for male disposability.

          I think you make a serious miscalculation in believing that labeling such a man a mangina will have any net effect on any perception of his personal male disposability. It actually tends to be the reverse in reality, with those we call manginas being the least concerned with (young) male victims, often openly dismissing the suffering of young male victims as being minuscule in comparison to the supposed suffering of women (who’ve actually endured less).

          I’ll let you in on something which I would otherwise not care to mention. My wife, a prosecutor, is getting ready to go to trial in a case with a 9 year-old male sexual assault victim. One of her biggest fears is finding people in the jury pool who are even willing to care that a boy has been victimized. She’d be better able to tell you, but the least concerned about any male victims are feminist men. Even staunchly feminist women tend to care more about boys being victimized than to adult male feminists, who also tend to advocate for the forced removal (i.e. death) of men who express masculine and/or patriarchal ideals. Boys as victims runs counter to their deeply held beliefs that men, even boys, simply cannot be victims (at least not to the extent that women are victimized).

          I seeking to paint a large swath of the Manosphere as “the enemy”, you have shown a complete misunderstanding of which segment of society is actually against seeing men as victims (of actual crimes).

          It’s a truly sad misreading of reality that I do hope you can recover from.

      • Slwerner, don’t bother. Andrew Richards is concern trolling.

        • On the contrary, what I am is a male rape and domestic violence victim advocate and therefore politically inconvenient to anyone who has no genuine interest in men at their most vulnerable in society beyond political mileage to use against feminists.

          Next time you shake your head in horror at 12 year old boys paying child support to female pedophiles, take a long hard look in the mirror – it is responses like yours and the attitudes they reveal which are precisely the reason it has been allowed to happen and continues to happen to the present day.

          At least feminists have the decency to be open about the fact they dismiss issues of male rape and DV victimhood and hold male survivors in contempt….

        • Next time you shake your head in horror at 12 year old boys paying child support to female pedophiles, take a long hard look in the mirror – it is responses like yours and the attitudes they reveal which are precisely the reason it has been allowed to happen and continues to happen to the present day.

          This makes no sense.

        • I don’t think we need to avoid “genital-based” slams against manginas. It doesn’t perpetuate discrimination against men because the entire reason why they’re being slammed is that they don’t act like men and they’re,ostensibly, not gay either. So manginas are freaks. It’s STILL acceptable to discriminate against FREAKS,and it may even be necessary to a healthy society. The reason why they are traitors to their sex is because nobody knocked the freak out of them (metaphorically,with the truth). Manginas should not, and cannot,be shielded from the negative results that they have forced upon the rest of us. They are the defensive line for a group of people who have stated that they want to KILL us.They must be incapacitated quickly,so we can get at the feminist pulling their strings. It’s just a reality of war.

        • Nergal, let’s presume for a minute that the premise of your argumenti s correct and that only male feminists are being targeted. The the issue isn’t shaming male feminists and giving them a massive wakeup call – heaven knows they need one.

          The problem is that not only does it not only simply give feminists a mountain of ammo to use and through the mechanism of choice, perpetuate the socialised policing of male disposability – it’s lno different to some in the manosphere, say, adopting “patriarchal theory” because it was deemed to benefit men (“Good Man Project” anyone).

          The fact is that we should want nothing to do with anything that contributes to male disposability, no matter how convenient it might be.

          Here’s the kicker though – the premise of your argument is patently false. In much the same way that “misogynist” has changed from a term meaning a patholigical hatred of women, to meaning anyone women have a pathological hatred of; so too has mangina devolved to a convenient cheap shot for closet trad-cons in the manosphere to fire at anyone the moment they dare call a spade a spade and reject traditionalism and feminism as equally bad deals for men.

          The groups that usually cop it the worst in this regard, are battered men and male rape survivors (particularly as advocating for male rape victims involves expanding legal definitions of rape).

          The fact is that when something is hitting men who are the most marginalised and the most victimised by society hard, and at the hands of individuals in the very community that’s meant to have their backs, then something is seriously messed up.

          That’s far from concern trolling – it’s calling a spade a spade.

        • closet trad-cons

          What closet tradcons? The actual tradcons of the manosphere wear that label proudly, and the rest of us regard tradcons as anti-feminist in name only.

        • “This makes no sense.”

          PMAFT – I raised 2 issues with the term mangina. The first being that because it is an example of the socialised policing of male disposability, that using it was reinforcing the normalisation of such tactics within the last place male disposability should be allowed.

          Secondly thought and directly pertinent to my response that the term has now expanded in its use to be a convenient cheap shot by tradcons in the manosphere and masquerading as MRAs to, amongst other things, attempt to shame and silence those of us advocating for male victims in areas such as sexual assault.

          You responded with the shaming tactic of “concern troll”. In doing do you contributed to a culture within the manosphere which is utterly hypocritical where men at their most vulnerable (and who are equally held in contempt by tradcons and feminists alike), are treated like the enemy and subhuman scum in the one community which should be a safe haven for them.

          It is precisely because of responses like the one you gave, that female-on-male rape is not legally recognised and 12 year old boys who are raped by female predators are forced to pay child support when their being raped results in a child.

        • The first being that because it is an example of the socialised policing of male disposability

          The term, mangina, does no such thing.

          Secondly thought and directly pertinent to my response that the term has now expanded in its use to be a convenient cheap shot by tradcons in the manosphere and masquerading as MRAs to, amongst other things, attempt to shame and silence those of us advocating for male victims in areas such as sexual assault.

          And yet you can’t produce an actual example of this happening.

          It is precisely because of responses like the one you gave, that female-on-male rape is not legally recognised and 12 year old boys who are raped by female predators are forced to pay child support when their being raped results in a child.

          You’re accusing me of points of view that I have never held. Again, on a lot of this stuff, you are (mostly) preaching to the choir. The term, mangina, has nothing to do with this. I can only conclude you are concern trolling, and that’s not a shaming tactic.

        • “What closet tradcons? The actual tradcons of the manosphere wear that label proudly, and the rest of us regard tradcons as anti-feminist in name only.”

          PMAFT – you need to open your eyes and ACTUALLY take the red pill. The fact is that there are countless MRAs out there who joined the movement because they oppose feminism, but in their hearts they are staunch tradcons who want nothing more than for men to go back to the craptacular deal for men of how things were – my guess is because they miss the smoke being blown up their asses that came with it.

          Heck, even Angry Harry, the “founder” of the men’s movement, fits this category – as demonstrated by a recent post on his blog where he dismissed the very notion of a male being raped by a woman and even went so far as to mock male rape victims as “having something wrong with them”. How on earth is that anything but espousing the model of male disposability where men are regarded by society as nothing more that walking ATMs, human shields and penises on legs.

        • The fact is that there are countless MRAs out there who joined the movement because they oppose feminism, but in their hearts they are staunch tradcons

          If there’s so many of them, then you should have no trouble producing some examples. When it comes to pointing out and opposing misandry from actual tradcons, I have been doing this for a lot longer than you have been around in the manosphere/androsphere. So has A Voice For Men and many other MRA sites. You’re mostly preaching to the choir on this except when you start talking about your conspiracy theory of “crypto-tradcons”.

          Heck, even Angry Harry, the “founder” of the men’s movement

          Angry Harry may be the “founder” of the MRM, although I’m not sure about that, but I have never associated with him. A Voice For Men, for example, used to associate with him, but separated themselves from him a while back. If you’re not concern trolling, what are you complaining about?

        • “The term, mangina, does no such thing.”

          On the contrary, it does precisely that because it is genitalia based. If you look at “grow a pair”, “harden up”, “man up” and “be a man” [as “manhood” is a commonly understood euphamism for male genitalia], to bring up just a few examples of male shaming tactics, you find that every single one of them is genitalia based – emasculation through a slur on a man or boy’s genitalia.

          The reason for that, given the double edged sword of the penis-based mock-pride (purely because it exists solely to glorify male disposability as opposed to because society genuinely believes that men should be valued as human beings), is that the penis has come throughout the ages to represent protection, provision, and perpetual sex-crazed virility.

          In making such an association, society traditionally were able to insidiously hardwire male disposability into our sexual identities, to the point where a failure to live up to the disposaable male ideal (a slave to gynocentrism) was deemed as a flaw in a man’s sexuality.

          While the intentions are admirable in the use of the term “mangina”, the same mechanisms are involved. If we’re serious about ending misandry and male disposability at its most core, then we need to break the mechanisms that police the association between male disposability and male sexual identity – rather than reinforcing them.

          “If there’s so many of them, then you should have no trouble producing some examples.”

          Actually 2 incidents immediately come to mind (funnily enough with A Voice for Men) – the first being what happened with James Landrith recently, where people couldn’t get in line fast enough to find reasons why either James should be blamed or unsupported by the MRM. Ironically for being one of the few there to actually defend James and treat those people engaging in such misandry the same way as I would a feminist saying the same thing – gasp, shock, horror, calling them, wait for it, “chauvinist pigs”, I was ‘indefinitely suspended’.

          Secondly what happened to me. There was a feminist meme posted on the AVfM website (of which I’ve taken screen caps of the entire thing) , which because I recognised some truth in it based on abuse I as a man had endured at the hands of an abusive woman, I argued shouldn’t be dismissed. Let’s face it, considering that rape laws currently don’t even recognise female-on-male vaginal rape; restricting rape laws would only harm male victims of sexual violence at the hands of women.

          Yet rather than a light-bulb moment going off, everyone dog piled on me and Paul Elam personally lead the charge in mocking what I had experienced and engaging in male victim blaming.

          Yet rather than apologise for an utterly terrible and misandrist lapse in judgement, Paul Elam decided rather than him having to live by his own challenge to feminists of “own your ****”, to act like a feminist in textbook fashion. He and the rest of the staff I encountered in the aftermath, decided that Paul was entitled to a special version of the pussy pass meant exclusively for Paul Elam – the Paul Elam pass. Using the Paul Elam pass, “he’s only human” was their justification for him acting the same way towards male rape and DV survivors and refusing to even have the decency to apologise.

          When I called him out as a misandrist rape and DV apologist on it publicly, I was banned. So let’s not pretend for a minute that even sites claiming to be the point of the sword are immune to misandry.

          There is something else I can add here pertaining to a Skype conversation between Dean Esmay and myself, but I’d rather avoid going there if I can help it, in the interests of respecting the fact that it was a private conversation between him and I.

          “I can only conclude you are concern trolling, and that’s not a shaming tactic.”

          The reason you’re concluding that is because you refuse to recognise the inherent male disposability in the term that’s right in front of your eyes. If I’m concern trolling, then where have I ever made the assertion that male feminists shouldn’t be shamed? Why have I proposed an alternative and been open to ideas in getting the best alternative we can?

          The fact is that if I was concern trolling I wouldn’t be proposing an alternative (my ‘draft’ version is “self-deprecating lemming” in case you missed it) and saying that I was open to suggestions to improvements on it.

          “When it comes to pointing out and opposing misandry from actual tradcons, I have been doing this for a lot longer than you have been around in the manosphere/androsphere”

          And that makes you omniscient, infallible in terms of running with something unthinkingly and then being too close to it to see it for what it is, does it?

          “So has A Voice For Men”

          A Voice for Men lost all credibility on this front when Paul Elam decided that mocking male victims of sexual violence and domestic violence when politically convenient was acceptable and the rest of the staff there blindly went along with it.

          “If you’re not concern trolling, what are you complaining about?”

          You mean besides the fact that using genitalia based shaming to combat male disposability is about as logical as screwing to regain your virginity or waging unprovoked war to maintain peace.

          Furthermore as I’ve proposed a promising alternative that is even more visually scathing and the imagery it invokes, your claims of my purely engaging in concern trolling, are pure fallacy.

  2. That’s one thing that Men need to understand about women and feminists, is that they will never, ever be pleased. Men make the mistake of projecting their own level of honesty and humbleness onto women, so when they ask women “Do you feel appreciated? Do you feel oppressed?” They will always answer whatever answer gets them more.

    It is much like a child, most children never think they are sufficiently taken care of because there is always something they can name they aren’t being given (like the shiniest new toys, or expensive baubles), and even when they ARE given oodles and oodles of things, they just end up spoiled.

    tl;dr: According to women, enough is never enough, even if they have everything.

  3. The only comparison that works is racists. Tom – you’ll always be a “nigger” to these people, no matter what.

  4. give women an inch and they will take a mile, and they will hate you the entire time for submitting to them.

    feminism is so caustic, it will eventually corrode itself out of spite. no one can deal with feminists and get away unscathed.

  5. Manginas were the deciding vote when it comes to feminism being dominant in our culture.

    Feminism is now starting to make more enemies than allies, and yet true to their nature, these histrionic, irrational beasts cannot rein themselves in long enough to keep any of their social winnings.

    No, the feminists will keep demanding more and more concessions until everyone but them realizes that they have lost their reason. The collapse is coming, but first we will see the mother of all shit-fits.

    Find a feminist today. And say something that makes her mad. Or that makes her cry. Make a demonstration of your intellectual and emotional power over her.

  6. Well, maybe he learns, but I honestly doubt it. He will most likely write that off as being a few crazy, radical feminists, and double down on the rest of his beliefs, which were always very WK, feminist “lite” type of garbage.

    I find more entertaining the falling out between him and Paul, because while they have strikingly different views on feminism and so on, one can also see quite a few commonalities between them simply being expressed in a different idiom. Both are concerned about men being “straitjacketed” by traditional gender norms, for example. Matlack was always more feminine in his approach, talking about men being “good” by embracing emotionalism, intimacy and so on rather than beer and football — in other words, stop being so different from women, dammit, and soften up. Paul’s place has gone on a more left/libertarian bent in the past year or so, with the emphasis on “men’s human rights”, which is also in a sense trying to align itself with what the “purest” “equality” goals of feminism would have been, while describing feminism, as it is in practice, as being hopelessly biased against men (which of course, it is, but there is a more fundamental reason for that which is precisely based on its equalitarian foundations and the ideology which underpins them). Both of them, in other words, are trying to “finish properly what feminism started” by “liberating men” or “recognizing men’s (human) rights” or “expanding/updating the definition of masculinity” or what have you. This is basically extending the “unfinished business of feminism”.

    This is doomed to be a failure no matter how it approached. One mainreason is that equalitarianism is based on a utopian falsehood. Equalitariianism can never really be achieved, because people are fundamentally unequal in a huge number of ways, which means that it is an endless crusade, the perfection of which remains more or less elusive and equidistant regardless of how diligently it is pursued. Eventually, in the pursuit of this, it is recognized that stricter measures much be taken against those who are “more equal than others”, which results in doubling down and precisely the kind of anti-male misandry that we see in the culture. This leads to the second reason, which is this — any ideology of equalitarianism identifies some groups who are more equal (the privileged) and others who are less equal (the oppressed). Again, the reason for this is that inequalities can never really be eradicated, so there is, in effect, *always* a privileged group that needs to be ground down, and an oppressed group that needs to be lifted up. As we know, in the context of men/women, men are the privileged and women are the oppressed. As much as we may think this is not the case, either historically or presently, because for various reasons men still strongly dominate the corner offices, the boardrooms, the legislatures and state houses and so on, men are going to be seen, objectively, as being the privileged group — and this is so regardless of how the non-apex men are faring. If anything, the issues of the non-apex men are apt to be blamed primarily on such men themselves than any institutional or social biases, precisely because men still dominate at the apex, which is taken to be an indication of the lack of any systemic anti-male bias. This is why we see the current “end of men” hand–wringing in the media focused on why men are failing themselves, rather than any structural or institutional biases that could be the root of this — because apex men are still dominant at the apex.

    Apex men will likely *continue* to be dominant at the apex for a few reasons. One is that traits tend to be unequally distributed as between the sexes, with wider distribution among men at the tails of the trait curve as compared with women, meaning that there are more ambitious men than there are ambitious women (and also more very unambitious men than there are very unambitious women). The same holds true for drive, intelligence, ruthlessness — all of the traits needed to land the corner office, the boardroom seat, the Senate and so on. There are some women who have these traits, too, obviously, but there will always be more men who have them. A second, and related, reason is that even as among women who have some of these apex traits, a disproportionate number of them will opt to scale back in order to have children (the kind of decision that Sheryl Sandberg hates, but which is nevertheless common enough) — which also tends to depress even further the women at the apex, by choice (not by discrimination). As a result of both of these reasons (and some smaller ones), men will continue to dominate at the highly visible apex, which means that any ideology of equalitarianism will continue to note this and identify men as the privileged sex, even if men below the apex are flailing and failing, because, again, these issues with the latter will be blamed on the men who are flailing and failing themselves, rather than structural bias, with the high visibility success of the apex men being offered as “Exhibit A”. This isn’t going to change, guys. Equalitarianism cannot but help to support feminism, because women will never really be equal to men at the apex. And people care more about the highly visible apex power positions than they do about the much less visible middle areas, and, again, will blame any issues faced by the middle on the guys themselves, precisely because the apex guys are still dominant at the apex. There is no way around this. *Any* ideology of equalitarianism — be it “men’s human rights” or “feminism lite/redefining masculinity” — will eventually lead to feminism, because as long as men dominate the apex, it will be taken as evidence that “the business of feminism is far from done”, and that, to the extent there is inequality that remains to be dealt with, it is inequality in *favor* of men, and not the reverse.

    The only way this will change is if women actually do achieve parity in these apex power positions. This could happen by force — i.e., the way Sweden is trying to do it by mandating board slots, for example. But it won’t happen short of force. And it’s more likely that this kind of force will happen than that any ideology based on equalitatrianism will result in anything other than oppressing average, every-day men even more than is the case today.

  7. […]  This post is based on a comment I made at PMAFT’s blog earlier today, edited, adapted and expanded for use […]

  8. “Reject traditionalism and feminism as equally.”

    The whole premise of your argument is that women and men are equal, which is feminism wrapped up in a bow tie.

    • On the contrary, at no point did I say that men and women were identical. Certainly there are biological differences between men and women. However those differences have been amplified to ridiculous levels by pragmkatic survivalist social conventions. The fact is that what is deemed “masculine” is based entirely around male disposability. What is deemed “feminine” is based entirely around female infantlisation. Both gender constructs exist solely to fuel gynocentrism. The reality is that if someone has an x and a y chromosome, they are male and whatever traists they have are masculine – despite what gynocentric dogma (espoused entirely by tradcons and manipulated by feminists) says.

      You claim that what I’ve said is “feminism wrapped up in a bow tie” yet, where does feminism even remotely acknowledge the core social issue of gynocentrism- much less oppose it?

      • “Gender construct.”

        Enough said.

        • lol
          Cute, Johnycomelately.
          But there’s nothing wrong with the concept of ‘gender’ provided it isn’t used to replace sex, as it often is these days. Indeed, I don’t know how you can be intellectually honest and AVOID a concept of ‘gender’, since it certainly ain’t biological for boys to not wear or dress in pink.

          Of course you are welcome to try an actual argument or you can just add more snark.

        • If I was going to meet snark with more snark, I could simply respond with 2 words: own goal.

          However nothing would be achieved by such a move. The flaw in your argument, and the reason why so many in the manosphere wind up spouting traadcon lines, is because what you have done here is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but rejecting both the feminist lie and the truth that it has been distorted from.

          The feminist argument is that gender is ENTIRELY constructed. Obviously this is utterly false as there are chemical and biological differences between men and women.

          However, the fact is, through a doctrine of pragmatic survivalism, society has subconsciously and collectively looked at those biological differences and isolated men and women in very different and oppressive roles, to maximise biological reproduction prior to the modern era. This system of course, was, and still is, gynocentrism. To police this culturally, “masculinity” (based around male disposability) and “femininity” (based around female infantalisation) were constructed around those roles, rather than actual biology.

          Claiming that this argument is feminist is to effectively claim that any assertions made that men are socialised to be disposable and that they are only valued based on their utility, are feminist assertions. Last I checked, such a ridiculous claim would only hold true in a universe where up is down, left is right and black is white.

      • “To police this culturally, “masculinity” (based around male disposability) and “femininity” (based around female infantalisation) were constructed around those roles, rather than actual biology. ”

        The healthiest relationships and happiest as far as I can see. Is the male being in the strong and dominant role and the woman being in the submissive obedient role. The success of game confirms the biological causes of such behaviour.

        I think you can find scientific studies out there that shows the divergence of boys in general being attracted to mechanical and military things. And girls in general liking to play with doll houses etc.

        Its fortunate in our modern era that men can afford the luxury of not having to play the protector role. And I can see that chivalry is bullcrap it can only come from a position of strength on behalf of the man. And the woman likewise worthy of such kindness.

        But I cannot see moving beyond proper gender roles as having a healthy impact on society the way it is happening now. Women pursuing careers like an ambitious man ending up childless desperate and spiteful. Becoming bitches destroying everything in their path.

        Some men becoming punks that just want to be victims and refuse to take responsibility for their lives(No I do not mean marry those sluts). As the reach of government expands and renders them more powerless. Not fulfilling their potential as masters of their destiny and conquerer’s in their own right. And since women in modern times are such bitches the best option for most men is MGTOW or the PUA path.

        Men should not allow themselves to be dependent on the government for that can only encourage tyranny.

        • There’s much I could pick apart with your post, ranging from how you fail to recognise thousands of years of cultural conventions and that you will also find men who are gentle and pacifists. There’s also the fact that you confuse an increase in latitude which women are given in a gynocentric system, and a change in gender paradigm.

          However there is one sentence in there which betrays you as a misandrist and a tradcon:

          “Some men becoming punks that just want to be victims and refuse to take responsibility for their lives(No I do not mean marry those sluts). ”

          How do male domestic violence victims choose to let women abuse them? How does a man choose for a woman to drug him, tie him up, cut off his penis and throw it in the garbage disposal when he asks for a divorce, for example? How does a man choose to have his drinks spiked then when he’s unconscious and vulnerable, used as an unwilling sperm donor? How does a 12 year old boy choose to be corrupted and used for some female predator’s sexual gratification?

          How does any abused man need to take responsibility for the actions of their abusers and the scars they cause? The fact is that those scars take a lifetime and those abused men do the best they can in a world they is all too quick to trivialise, ridicule and dismiss they painful and long journey of recovery- let alone the abuse they endured itself.

          Yet the underlying premise of your argument is that the traditional system works fine and that men just have to “be a man” about life, regardless of the circumstances – to “grow a pair”, “to harden up” and so the list of slurs which perpetuate this very same misandrist attitude goes on.

          PMAFT – you asked for glaringly obvious examples of tradcons posing as MRAs. I give you “infowarrior1” as yet another one of them.

  9. I have to agree.
    The ‘anti egalitarian’s – those who don’t believe in equality under the law – are merely authoritarians of one stripe or another.
    I find it very ironic that authoritarians (because if you don’t have equality under the law you always have to repress someone; heck usually you have to repress everyone) are making an argument based on how egalitarianism supposedly leads to more authoritarianism. Why should we care that they just want their own brand imposed rather than MRA’s even try?

    • This is a good example of the twisted logic tradcons use to say up is down. (Take a look at Mark Richardson’s “autonomy theory” for another example.)

      I’m becoming convinced that tradcons want the entire feminist legal apparatus to remain because they are working extremely hard against any efforts to oppose it.

      • I’ll see what Nova says on his blog.
        I know you and me have had some disagreements and me and him have had some disagreements. But until recently I never thought he might be the type of tradcon you are talking about.

        It does seem like lots of tradcons (and a few others) are going on and on lately(seems an emerging meme within the past 2 or 3 months, though Richardson has been on about how evil egalitarianism is for about 2 years I’d guess) about how even equality before the law is somehow a bad ‘feminist’ concept. Of course they never give their ideas of just what should be unequal and to whom in our society, instead they just criticize the MRA’s.

        The laws against men in America (and heck, most western countries) are so bad you certainly aren’t going to get a ‘patriarchy’ under the systems ruled by the current legal system – assuming you WANT patriarchy ( I don’t) which the tradcons supposedly do. But they whine even when MRA’s try to do anything about these laws. It doesn’t make sense.

        Next step if they are honest: some form of idealistic religious philosophy – leave this world to the sinners, focus on the next, that sort of thing – or , for the ones who aren’t being honest we will see more open Nazgul Misandry.

        • “But they whine even when MRA’s try to do anything about these laws. It doesn’t make sense.”

          On the contrary, it’s entirely predictable. What tradcons want and enforce is a gynocentric society. It doesn’t matter how bad it gets for men; any laws seen as “protecting women” and “ensuring ‘women and children’ are provided for are viewed by them as being in the interests of “good men”. This is because, according to the construct of masculinity, men only have value based on their sexual prowess, ability to provide and ability to protect (which incidentally is why feminism has had such an easy time pushing their twisted ideology and lies). Tradcons are doubly ignorant about this of course so your chances of seeing it happen, even when their own lives are threatened.

          Of course even when things go wrong, it doesn’t change. There are plenty of tradcon men out there who get bitten so hard by the system that they’re forced to face that there’s a problem, decided that their problems are entirely due to feminism in a massive prima facie, see the MRM combats feminism, and decide to join the MRM.

          However as the MRM moves increasingly towards combating the tradcon agenda, these men find themselves at odds with the movement they joined, because they never really rejected gyocentrism in its entirety – including everything that system told them about what is “manly” and what is “unmanly”. However this tends to get a free pass in at least some MRM spaces because it’s perceived as advantageous in fighting feminism (since when did fighting feminism become more core than fighting for a society where men are treated as human beings and automatically deemed just as worthy of dignity, justice and compassion as women).

          It is for that reason that I’ve come to identify with no single movement and entirely with the notion that men are human beings, who are therefore just as entitled to and deserving of dignity, compassion and justice as women are.

        • But until recently I never thought he might be the type of tradcon you are talking about.

          Me either. I’m very surprised by this.

          It does seem like lots of tradcons (and a few others) are going on and on lately(seems an emerging meme within the past 2 or 3 months, though Richardson has been on about how evil egalitarianism is for about 2 years I’d guess) about how even equality before the law is somehow a bad ‘feminist’ concept. Of course they never give their ideas of just what should be unequal and to whom in our society, instead they just criticize the MRA’s.

          I have noticed the same thing, and it’s very stupid. What the tradcons are doing is unthinking contrarianism and trying to use philosophy to hide that they’re doing this. If feminists are for X, now the tradcons are not X or anti X regardless of what X is. The tradcons are also taking feminists at face value and are assuming that feminists are honest. Both of those are wrong. Tradcon BS about “equality” is the perfect example of this. They assume that feminists actually want equality because they say so and are using the term equality in ways that it is commonly understood such as “equality before the law”. Again, both statements are wrong. For all intents are purposes tradcons support feminists because they’re pushing the lie that feminists are honest and want (what is commonly understood) as equality.

          Next step if they are honest: some form of idealistic religious philosophy – leave this world to the sinners, focus on the next, that sort of thing

          This would be fine if they actually did it instead of whining about MRAs.

        • Equality under the law is a bad thing for everyone.

          While everyone should face the same (possibility of) punishment for breaking the same law, everyone should not have equal rights….like the right to vote.

          We allow our country to be flooded with illegal mexicans, then we let them vote. We have worthless blacks on welfare who will never even look for a job….but they get to vote.

          That’s why this country is becoming socialist. We let scum who don’t pay into the system have a voice in the running of this country. This is why this “equality” mindset is insane and harmful to all.

          I say “possibility of punishment” because I kind of like how the system works for me at the moment….no matter what I get arrested for, I just pay my way out of it and don’t go to jail. I don’t want to see the justice system through a poor man’s eyes….jail must suck.

  10. @Andrew Richards

    “Here’s the kicker though – the premise of your argument is patently false. In much the same way that “misogynist” has changed from a term meaning a patholigical hatred of women, to meaning anyone women have a pathological hatred of; so too has mangina devolved to a convenient cheap shot for closet trad-cons in the manosphere to fire at anyone the moment they dare call a spade a spade and reject traditionalism and feminism as equally bad deals for men.”

    If that is the case,and I assume you argue in good faith and it is, then it doesn’t invalidate my premise at all. In fact,it bolsters it. If people are applying the word “mangina” to situations that don’t warrant it, the solution is not to deride the use of the term altogether,but to also shame the idiots who misuse words or use words that they do not fully understand,just as was done in ages past with “dunce” caps and the like. I would be completely on board with this. I’ve seen self-professed MRA’s,who I otherwise completely agree with, use the word “slut” (like a dumbass feminist) to denote a promiscuous male in spite of the fact that (a) there are already perfectly good words for promiscuous men,and (b) the fucking dictionary explicitly says it refers only to a woman. People are going to misuse words, especially when over 40% of your population is stupid enough to vote for their own enslavement and oppose their country’s own founding documents guaranteeing their everlasting liberty.

    If you are smart enough to know the difference between what is correct and what is incorrect, you don’t start doing something which is incorrect because the incorrect are now doing what was formerly correct incorrectly. Instead, the responsibility to educate or otherwise mitigate the deleterious effects of these poor dumb savages now falls on your shoulders.

    • Nergal, the problem is that even if you take away the misuse of the term in terms of its intended scope; you still wind up in a situation where a social convention designed to enforce misandry and male disposability [and subsequently male oppression] is used to combat misandry and male disposability.

      That might fly when you’re just tackling misandry and male disposability superficially, but what about when society reaches a point where it starts to dig a little deeper and finds that the MRM are using a convention to enforce misandry and male disposability to combat misandry and male disposability? At best we look foolish and at worst we look like a pack of hypocrites and lose a heap of credibility.

      Personally I’d rather nip that future problem in the bud before it comes back to bite us on the butt, but then maybe that’s just me.

  11. Look I did not say anything about real abuse. That must be addressed yes.

    Surely men must band together as brothers and carry through. And what did I ever say about Justice?

    Is it not beneficial that as well as the healing process that men should go through. That they train to become stronger and more self-sufficient. They they do go through the toughening process(Not talking about injustice). Learning game etc. Learning to be a better man

    Disengagement from society but as men is the way to go. There is no point changing the system the corruption runs too deep.

    • On the contrary, your entire response here has merely reinforced what I’ve said.

      You’ve said:

      “Look I did not say anything about real abuse. That must be addressed yes.”

      Yet here’s what you’ve said:

      “Some men becoming punks that just want to be victims and refuse to take responsibility for their lives(No I do not mean marry those sluts). ”

      This sentence blatantly attacks men who have been the victims of abuse. However your response goes even further in this very direction when you say:

      “That they train to become stronger and more self-sufficient. They they do go through the toughening process(Not talking about injustice). Learning game etc. Learning to be a better man”

      Really, so men just flick a switch and suddenly they’re in a place where they’re ready to come to terms with it and flick another switch and the scars are no longer there? That’s precisely how this comes across. You say you’re not talking about justice, yet neither am I.

      Yes you say “Surely men must band together as brothers and carry through.” However the aforementioned quote makes it clear that the model of “banding together” you are advocating for is a gynocentric one of enforcing male disposability.

      Look at your focus- on the “toughening process” – in other words the notion of men just “taking a teaspoon of cement and hardening the **** up”, of “growing a pair”, of “manning up” or “being a real man”.

      What you advocate for here makes you no friend to male survivors. What male survivors of any kind of abuse, including being victimised by the system need, is understanding and compassion, permission to be kind to themselves and patience while they get to a point where they can actually come to terms with the horrors they have endured. What they need is compassionate and empathetic encouragement rather than the brutal emasculation you advocate for.

      Your way is the way that has always been there – the way that feminists have played on and amplified. It is the reason why male suicide is an epidemic in the Western world.

      • Quite right Andrew. The whole dynamic of learning ‘game’ (and what a laughable piece of advice that is) and being more ‘alpha’ is all still caught within the utilitarian viewpoint of men. I’ve been a critic of the utilitarian viewpoint of men and it has never gained me any allies within the Gamesphere. Oddly enough it has been very successful in conversations with male and female feminists (although I hate talking with them).

        fathers of daughters, single mothers, “traditional” women, narcissistic men will always embrace the utilitarian worldview because it predetermines a role for men, and without that role, they are worse than nothing.

        People need to read more Erich Fromm and less Roissy/Roosh.

      • “Men need compassion and permission to be kind to themselves”.

        MEN don’t need permission to do anything. We do what we want when we want. Whose permission are you asking for here? Whose permission do you require in order to do something? Are you really a man?

        Be kind to ourselves? What, you go out and buy a new pair of shoes and a handbag to cope? A trip to the spa? What the hell? What is “being kind to ourselves”? Drink a few beers with your best friend, talk about what’s eating you, get it out of your system, then get on with your ass kicking…..

        • “MEN don’t need permission to do anything. We do what we want when we want. Whose permission are you asking for here? Whose permission do you require in order to do something? Are you really a man?”

          Always entertaining to see a mindless mouthpiece talk out of his ass (or is that stool? It’s always hard to tell with people like you). On one hand you balk at the notion of men needing permission to be kind to themselves, ignoring that for all survivors of prolonged abuse, this is a genuine issue for us as we are our own worst critics.

          On the other hand you fail to recognise that it’s people like you who and the culture of shame you create which are the reason why most male victims of rape and domestic violence never come forwards and compound that problem multiple times over.

          “Be kind to ourselves? What, you go out and buy a new pair of shoes and a handbag to cope? A trip to the spa? What the hell? What is “being kind to ourselves”?”

          Yes, it must be something really efeminate mustn’t it – there’s no way it could ever be something like survivors refusing to blame themselves for their abuse, looking after their own pseronal hygene, avoiding self-sabotage, embracing opportunities and valuing and taking care of their own health, now could it?

          “Drink a few beers with your best friend, talk about what’s eating you, get it out of your system, then get on with your ass kicking…..”

          Yes because you know, if it was that simple and easy, there’s no way that those of us who are who are survivors wouldn’t have done that long ago, is there?

    • No that is a link to what reduces a man from a human being into a into nothing more than a walking ATM, a walking human shield and a penis on legs – namely a subhuman slave to gynocentrim.

      In fact the fact that the blogger in question actually tells men who feel victimised by the system and by women, for whatever reason, no matter how legitimate, that they should be ashamed of themselves for identifying as a man to get over their “victim mentality” and even goes so far as to tell men who feel victimised by the system to commit suicide when they say “Go jump off a fucking cliff.” Considering the tone of the rest of the blog entry, I’m not buying for one minute that that was just some carelessly used figure of speech.

      Stop pretending you actually care about men – you’ve proven you couldn’t care less about them. You and your ilk are the reason feminists have risen to power. You and your ilk are the reason why the system is so corrupt. You and your ilk are the reason why countless men and boys are subjected to violence, sexual violence and destitution on a daily basis. You and your ilk are the reason there is such an epidemic of male suicide out there.

      Stop pretending you care about men. Your support for this misandrist, DV apologist, rape apologist, pedophilia apologist tradcon ratbag (which btw his mocking of male victims ammounts to), proves that all you want is for the same gynocentric misandry to be in place but with smoke constantly blown up men’s asses so they never stop to see the system for the brutal prison it is for them.

      In short, the only person you’re fooling by pretending to be an MRA, is yourself.

  12. “Compassion for men”. That very idea, that very statement brings bile into my throat.

    Men don’t need compassion.

    Men are conquerors. Men take what they want. Men run their lives how they want.

    I, as a Man, do not need or want compassion. I do not want victim-hood. I do not want special govt protected status. As long as I feel like living in this country, I will take what I want. When I feel that this country has become too fem-centric, I will leave.

    This victim mentality must go.

    • If you despise the notion of compassion for men, then you are no friend to the dignity or humanity of men. Your attitude of a complete callousness towards men is precisely why gynocentrism is alive and well today.

      It is because of attitudes like yours that primary aggressor laws exist and why battered men aren’t taken seriously.

      It is because of attitudes like yours that female on male rape is not recognised and male rape victims are treated worse than dirt by society – whilst false rape allegationns both get a free pass and are not prosecuted.

      It is because of attitudes like yours that underage boys as young as 12 are forced to pay child support to pedophiles and prior to that, were forced into shotgun marriages.

      It is because of attitudes like yours that there is an epidemic of male suicide out there.

      Rape apologist, DV apologist and pedophile aqpologist misandrists like you have no place in the MRM and no right to claim that they genuinely care about men’s rights or the plight of men in society.

      If men follow your brutally misandrist agenda, all they will earn themselves is more of the same gynocentrism and more of the same male disposability. The only difference between people like you and feminists is that you blow smoke up men’s asses while feminists poor scorn on men. Other than that, you both want male disposability (if you advocate for stoicism, you are advocating for male disposability) and therefore through what it exists to facilitate, gynocentrism.

      Neither what you propose nor the likes of what the femitheist proposes offers anything other than an utterly craptastic deal for men. Any man who follows you or your warped agenda is as much of a self-depricating lemming as a male feminist and is simply getting what they have chosen to support with every bit of gynocentric injustice they encounter.

      Stop pretending you’re part of the solution – you and your tradcon ilk are the problem and what feminism’s foundations are built upon.

      • I don’t claim to be an MRA. I don’t pretend to be “part of the solution” because I am not sure what you think “the problem” is. The world is fucked up. That’s what I blog about. I don’t blog about “Men’s Rights” because real Men don’t need Daddy Government to tell them what their “Rights” are. I know what my rights are. Rape apoligist? You should see my arrest record. I’ve been falsely accused, arrested and tried for rape. I beat it. I don’t sit around crying to other sissy men about it.

        You don’t think men should be Masculine? You sound, to me, like a feminist liberal who just wants a slice of the “victim pie” so you can get special status and govt protection. That is sad and disgusting. You are male. The world is yours to conquer, but you would rather whine about how unfair the rules are. I play under the same system as everyone else, and I kick ass all day. I attain all my goals, I get what I want.

        I’m too busy being awesome to write thousand-word blog comments on how mean the “tradcon”s are. And just so you know…I’m not a tradcon. I’m an atheist, I hate most Republican politicians because they are too worried about what the Church says and not worried enough about dealing with real world shit. I hate the Democrats because they are whiny hippies.

        The important thing to get out of this….I’m not a bloody MRA and I would be ashamed if people associated me with your little victim movement. I have never been a victim and I will never allow myself to become a victim. You can have all the special victim status you want.

        I’m not a tradcon. I’m not a “mens rights” blogger. I’m an anti-socialist (which kind of means anti-MRA), survivalist, minimalist, anti-partisan, anti-equality and race realist blogger.

        So I don’t claim to be part of the solution to your imaginary problems. You just keep on being a feminist and yearning for some of that coveted victim status. I’ll be the successful White Patriarch I was born to be. Go cry about your victim-hood some more.

        • “I don’t claim to be an MRA. I don’t pretend to be “part of the solution” because I am not sure what you think “the problem” is. The world is fucked up. That’s what I blog about. I don’t blog about “Men’s Rights” because real Men don’t need Daddy Government to tell them what their “Rights” are. I know what my rights are. Rape apoligist? You should see my arrest record. I’ve been falsely accused, arrested and tried for rape. I beat it. I don’t sit around crying to other sissy men about it. ”

          Right so by your own admission, the extent of the injustice you have faced is false allegation and you haven’t got the first clue about the realities for male victims of rape, domestic violence and child abuse where the abuser is female.

          You have no idea what it’s like to live in a world where you are the butt of jokes for being the victim of a crime which would see rioting on the streets if the roles were reversed.

          You have no idea of just what scars it leaves and the time it takes to heal from them (in most cases, several years; in some cases, never).

          Small surprise you would think it’s as simple as flicking a switch, but then only from a place of sheer ignorance could someone say that men should just be able to “get over it”.

          Mind you this speaks volumes:

          “I’m not a tradcon. I’m not a “mens rights” blogger. I’m -SNIP- survivalist,”

          Right so you claim not to be a tradcon on one hand, yet on the other hand you adhere to the ideological foundations of tradcons.

          For anyone who wonders how gynocentrism got such a hold on our society, I give you its provider and protector – survivalism.

          “So I don’t claim to be part of the solution to your imaginary problems.”

          Issues with male suicide, male rape victims, battered men, boys who are the victims of pedophiles and male destitution, to name just a few issues, are “imaginary”? Right, you just keep enjoying your stay in Neverland there.

          “You just keep on being a feminist and yearning for some of that coveted victim status. I’ll be the successful White Patriarch I was born to be. Go cry about your victim-hood some more.”

          A common theory about why the dinosaurs died out is because they failed to adapt to changing conditions. People like you give that theory a great deal of credence.

        • I’m somewhat confused about how my being a survivalist makes me a tradcon. Perhaps we have different meanings we associate with the word.

          When I say survivalist, I mean I focus on the ability to live off the land, be self-sufficient and be prepared for disasters. I fail to see how that makes me a tradcon. I see no link between the two. Anyone who has some emergency rations and candles put back in case the SHTF is a tradcon? Confusion.

        • You keep going on and on about how you’ve been the victim of rape, domestic violence, and god knows what else. This victim status you claim makes you above reproach, in your mind, and an expert on all things MRA.

          I would like to hear a little more about this. Did your significant other beat you up? How many times? Did you not leave the first time?

        • “I’m somewhat confused about how my being a survivalist makes me a tradcon.”

          The reason is simple. The traditionalist attitude to gender (roles, traits, you name it) is entirely grounded in pragmatic survivalism. All male disposability and all female infantalism is based on the environmental and socioeconomic conditions prior to the birth or modern medicine – when average life expectancies were around 40, when maternal mortality rates were incredibly high and so were child mortality rates.

          The entire system is rigged around the time when a woman might have to give birth to 5-10 children, only to have 1 survive. Yet technology and socioeconomic conditions have changed, but society still operates under the same gender role paradigm. That paradigm is one of survivalism – the ideology of survivalists, such as yourself.

          “You keep going on and on about how you’ve been the victim of rape, domestic violence, and god knows what else. This victim status you claim makes you above reproach, in your mind, and an expert on all things MRA. ”

          On the contrary, I have never once claimed infallibility. However it has given me a somewhat unique perspective (shared by all male survivors) on issues where men face injustice equally from feminists and traditionalists and an ability to recognise where the root causes for misandry in society are and the ability to recognise when people are off the mark in that regard.

          “I would like to hear a little more about this. Did your significant other beat you up? How many times? Did you not leave the first time?”

          You’ve made claims that issues of male abuse are imaginary, claimed that any man who feels that male victims should be recognised and given compassion by society is a closet feminist and openly stated that the notion of men given compassion makes you feel bile in your throat.

          And you want me to open up to you about abuse I endured so you can tell respond with the callousness and mockery that is utterly predictable based on every single comment you’ve made her to date? I hate to burst your bubble but I’m a survivor of abuse, not a complete moron.

          On the other hand, the journalist for a major Australian print media publication who is arranging a time to interview me for a piece he is writing on battered men because he feels most of society don’t care about the subject, is a very different story. Then again, he actually understands that treating men with compassion simply means recognising that men are actually human beings.

        • I recognize that Men are human beings. Powerful, intelligent, logical and lethal human beings who can control their world if they choose to do so.

          I’ve been on the receiving end of a false rape accusation, as I mentioned. I beat it and I don’t cry about it. Even though is cost me over 10 grand.

          I’ve been in an abusive relationship. I should have left, but the highs and lows, the accusations and infidelity and constant break-ups kept things interesting. I could have, and should have, gotten out of it. But every time she dumped me for an ex, and said terrible things about me and broke down my self-esteem, it just made me want to get her back to prove a point. Went on for a year. I finally bailed. I’m not crying about it on my blog and asking for “compassion”. I could have left. Period. I have free will. Do you? It was my fault, not hers. I control my life and destiny.

          A girl took advantage of me while I was shit-faced drunk. My son is now 4 and I have another 14 years of child support to deal with before I can retire. I’m not crying about it. I should have known better, even though I was nine kinds of drunk. I should have put a condom on. I made a mistake. I pay for it for 18 years.

          I don’t cry about this shit. I don’t want sympathy. I just keep making more and more money so I can pay for all my mistakes and keep up with my high standard of living. If I have to work 90 hours a week….oh well. That’s what it takes to have acres of property, a pond, a big house and multiple vehicles while paying child support. Shit happens. I will still conquer and run my shit.

          Why is it I can admit I made mistakes and move on, and my star keeps rising, while you just want “compassion” as a “victim” and a “survivor”? Own your shit. Seriously….did a girl beat you up? How small are you, bro? Were you dating a big masculine woman? Or did she abuse you emotionally, like what happened to me? Did you stick around when you knew better, like I did? That’s your fault. Just like it was my fault.

          Did you get raped while drunk, like I did? That’s your mistake, just like it was my mistake. I pay my dues.

          What’s your deal, seriously?

          And you’re not a bloody survivor.

          Someone who beats cancer is a survivor. Someone who got their leg blown off by that bomb in Boston is a survivor. Guys who got badly hurt by mines in Iraq, and watched their friends get blown apart are survivors (I’m a former Marine). I’ve watched some of my battle buddies blow their brains out right in front of me, then got arrested for their murder. Once again, I beat it. These are fucking survivors. You have no right to call yourself a survivor because your gf beat you up. Call yourself a victim all you want, you are not a fucking survivor.

          The fact that you were this traumatized by a girl means that you have not dealt with real life shit. You have never been shot. You have never been mugged at gunpoint. You have never been beaten to within an inch of your life by 5 guys at once because you stood up for a friend. If you had, you would understand that your little problems are laughable. Join the military, go to war, and find out what being a man is really about. Watch your friends die in agony. Then tell me how I should cry for you because a girl beat you up.

        • Congratulations for proving my point – you haven’t conquered anything – what you have is a textbook case of Stockholm Syndrome where you’ve bought hook line and sinker into the traditionalist narrative.

          In fact you’re a walking evidence exhibit of exactly the point I’ve made. Every single turn of abuse you’ve endured, you’ve repressed it and blamed yourself – arguably because society has blamed you that many times – either overtly and directly or indirectly and subliminally – that you’ve bought into it hook line and sinker to the point where you staunchly defend it. You are a walking advertisement for the effects of a brainwashed, disposable man. Before this post, I felt disgust for you. Now I honestly just feel pity for you as it doesn’t take a genius to see that it all catching up with you and you having a nervous breakdown is more a matter of “when”, than “if”.

          I was going to point out that while you may have had the tools to move on and rebuild, not every man does. I was going to point out that in many cases they may also have been subjected to child abuse from an age where certain coping strategies, certain survival tools, simply haven’t had the chance to develop and so part of their recovery process is developing those tools which may have developed and which most healthy, functioning adults take for granted.

          However the fact is that all you’ve done is shove it all as deep down as you can in the hopes that it’ll stay there. The fact is that if it doesn’t come out sideways, then it’s only a matter of time before it forces its way up.

          What you’re not getting, what you’re refusing to get, is that if someone is a victim/survivor of abuse, then their timetable for recovery is going to be unique to them — depending on the scale of the trauma and the tools they might need.

          Surely giving a man the time and the tools he needs to get back on track and heal from abuse should be a matter of logic if nothing else – rather than advocating for the system which tosses men onto the scrapheap who fail to live the alpha ideal every minute of every day.

          Oh and fyi, 12 months after I confronted my family about abuse that had gone on from the age of 6, I was nearly beaten to death (in fact I was told by nurses and doctors treating me that it was a minor miracle that I wasn’t dead or a vegetable). It happened because instead of choosing to get away and risk the drunk psychos out to get me tracing me back to my elderly parents and harming them, I distanced myself from the car and wound up getting severely beaten by a group of a dozen people (the usual breakdown of 11 cowards encircling me while one “big brave guy” tries to prove a point) – earning myself a blowout fracture to the left orbit, loss of feeling on the left side of my face, 3 lost lower teeth and a 17cm fracture to the lower jaw as well as welts from having my head stomped on multiple times.

          The only reason I’m bringing this up is so we can add your grasp of my experiences of life to be as equally disconnected from reality as everything else.

        • If what you say is true, I respect you a little more for having endured REAL victimhood. I was a nerdy kid most of my school years and got my ass kicked all the time. I sometimes got beaten so badly my Father would want to go to the school and kill people. I always told him to let me handle my shit. I started working out and learned to fight. I got expelled because of how badly I hurt my former abusers. I broke bones and did permanent damage, once I had the power to do it.

          I’ve been in the military. I’ve seen real life shit. I honestly just cannot see how someone like you can claim life-long damage from something a girl did, when I have seen good friends with their entrails hanging out of their abdomens, screaming for their mothers.

          I have had my best friend’s brains splash across me as I heard the *crack* of his Marine-issue sidearm break the silence.

          And you want sympathy and empathy because a girl hurt you?

          I don’t want sympathy. The things I have been through are REAL LIFE MAN SHIT. These are the things that make you realize what being a man is really about.

        • a) I couldn’t care less how much you do or don’t respect me and

          b) everything you say only makes me respect you less and less.

          So you’ve seen horrors in warfare when others might not have? Do you want a medal?

          The fact is that what matters with abuse survivors is how the trauma affects them, not how much it slots into the dick measuring contest you want to have based on what you have experienced.

          In fact it’s because of attitudes like yours that 12 year old boys raped by female pedophiles are blamed for the child abuse they endure and expected to “man up” and pay child abuse to the pedophiles that raped them.

          Of course what you fail to grasp is that every survivor’s experiences have affected them to the degree that they have affected them. Every survivor will take a different amount of time and need different tools to heal from their abuse. This is especially true when you get into things like psychological abuse which mess survivors up like nobody’s business and is only just beginning to be understood.

          Giving men permission to be victims/survivors in society has nothing to do with a pity party. It’s about giving male victims acceptance as survivors so they can openly reach a place where they can start to overcome the abuse- as well as the tools and time they need to overcome what they endured. It’s about healing on the timetables they need- not the timetables you think they should need based on your twisted dick measuring contest.

          Of course this is something you may never actually come to understand.

        • YOU ARE NOT A SURVIVOR. Quit using that word. I know real survivors, men who have had limbs blown off in war. You are not A FUCKING SURVIVOR. You can call yourself a victim all you want, but you ARE NOT A SURVIVOR. Your life was not in danger because a girl was mean to you.

          I was not (horribly) physically damaged in war. I pulled a few muscles and had some infections, but that is nothing compared to what my battle buddies dealt with. I got shot once. Still nothing compared to what other Men dealt with.

          You are committing THEFT OF VALOR by calling yourself a survivor.

          Explain how you are a survivor. Explain how your life was in danger, or how you dealt with cancer. Explain to me the feeling of a hot piece of metal passing through your body and the shock that comes with it, as you tell your friends you are fine. As your friends look at you like you are crazy as your hot red blood spills out. Tell me how horrible it was for your girlfriend to be mean to you.

          Call yourself a sissy and a victim all you want. But you are not a SURVIVOR.

        • Yep, it’s definitely spilling out sideways. How dare someone who has survived trauma compare their trauma to yours right?

          Well I hate to break burst your bubble, but you do not get to define how traumas affect those who are afflicted by them.

          You claim to have “conquered”, but look at your responses – the moment you come across someone whose trauma/abuse you deem “inferior” to yours, you respond almost militantly with an implied violence were it a physical encounter.

          You claim you’ve “conquered” but what I clearly see is someone who is struggling for validation of what they endured and whose coping mechanisms when confronted by another survivor who chooses a path other than stoicism, collapse like a house of cards.

          I don’t have to justify being a survivor of child and domestic violence to you (or of being a survivor of sexual violence both as a teenager and within the domestic violence for that matter) – I know it happened to me, I know how it affected me and I own it and choose to spend as long as it takes regaining my life and making up for the 23+ years I lost to abuse. Any notion that that lessens my maleness is utterly absurd.

          Conversely your need to validate or invalidate the abuse of others based on the benchmark of what you have endured, implies a desperate need to justify and validate it on your part.

        • Once again…call yourself a victim. I don’t care. You simply do not have a right to call yourself a survivor. Unless you can explain when your life was in mortal danger. Otherwise, I can call myself a “survivor” of a really tough game of chess. Sounds silly, doesn’t it? So does your bullshit.

          Every man should take pity on my because when I was in 9th grade we went up against a college in a chess tournament and I lost. True story. I am a chess survivor. Please pity me and drop some change in the collection plate. You must respect my survivor status, even though it is ridiculous, according to your rules. Now go out there and fight for my rights as a chess loser.

        • And just for the record…I don’t want any sympathy for what I have endured. I just went through typical man shit.

          But I do despise you for trying to steal valor from the men I have seen die. You are a fucking cockroach compared to them.

          I don’t want victim status or sympathy. I can handle what I’ve been through.

          But to even put yourself on or near the level of what I have seen better men than you endure…that is bordering criminal.

          I am just a Man. I still have all my limbs. I am legally blind, but I never tell employers that or even let them know. I play it off with contacts plus glasses.

          If I were like you, I would demand special priveleges for being blind. I don’t. I just ignore it and kick ass.

          The men who have died in my presence would be ashamed to know that someone like you wants to consider yourself a fucking SURVIVOR. You have no right. You have never been in a life or death situation. You apparently let some woman fuck you up. Sucks to be you. But you are not a survivor. You are just a self-proclamied victim.

          Seeing what I have seen, seeing honorable Men die for an ideal….then listening to you blather on about how it will take you a lifetime to overcome your little trials….makes me sick.

        • No what’s utterly sick and depraved are the attitudes like your which are the reason why there is such a high epidemic of male suicide, why male child rape victims get court ordered to pay child abuse, and why male rape and DV survivors are treated like the butt of jokes in society.

          You put on the big tough guy act, but you are nothing but a scared little child deep down, desperately clinging to their machismo facade in a vain attempt to stop the pain from the scars spilling out sideways or forcing their way back up.

          The fact is that you can’t have male abuse survivors being given compassion or even recognised as survivors, because if that became the norm, well it would mean the same would apply for you and you would be completely and utterly emasculated by your own extreme definitions of masculinity.

          Of course the moment you do that – the one thing you value yourself by and and in spite of your abuse, goes out the window and you have nothing left to compare yourself to in spite of the abuse. I hate to break it to you but that’s pretty typical survivor behaviour and proof that you have conquered nothing in terms of your abuse.

          You call me a cockroach, yet ironically it is you who is scurrying from the light.

          I’d laugh if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    • Once again you engage in complete and utter strawman arguments. The fact is that I couldn’t care less whether or not you give me permission to call myself a survivor- it’s happening, so deal with it.

      As for the entire scope of survivors of domestic violence victims and how bad it can get, by your zeitgeist based strawman, men who are drugged, tied up and then have their penises chopped off and thrown in the garbage disposal, or who are threatened with kitchen knives, or who are doused in petrol and set alight, or who are driven to the point of suicide aren’t in mortal danger?

      And you call my argument bullshit? Pot, kettle, black much?

      The fact that you would compare domestic violence, pedophilia and rape to a lost chess match (unless the fallout from it was a component of child abuse you may have been enduring at the time) only proves what a strawman your entire premise is.

      • Seriously, dude. How many men in America have had their penis chopped off or been doused with gas and set on fire? Is it really an everyday problem like you make it out to be? I work with hundreds of men (real men) and not a single one of them has been through such a thing. So I think it’s you with the “strawman” arguments.

        How many men have been drugged and raped for their seed? Seriously? And they would, I imagine, have to have already been in a somewhat compromising situation already for that kind of thing to occur.

        “Driven to suicide”. How do you “drive” a man to suicide? You and most MRAs seem to completely neglect one important thing. Men have free will. Men can walk away from a situation. Men can hang up the phone if a woman is emotionally abusing them. Suicide is a personal choice. It’s a decision. Men should not allow external influences to have any control over their core being.

        • “Seriously, dude. How many men in America have had their penis chopped off or been doused with gas and set on fire? Is it really an everyday problem like you make it out to be? I work with hundreds of men (real men) and not a single one of them has been through such a thing. So I think it’s you with the “strawman” arguments. ”

          You claim that not a single one of the men you work with has every faced domestic violence involving physical harm or weapons. Yet the actual answer would be ‘that you know of”.

          Honestly, if I worked with you and it happened to me, why would I disclose to you what happened? So you could mock me, blame me entirely for it?

          This kind of strawman argument is the feminist kind when citing police reports to claim that domestic violence and rape against men are far lower than they are.

          “How many men have been drugged and raped for their seed? Seriously? And they would, I imagine, have to have already been in a somewhat compromising situation already for that kind of thing to occur. ”

          The fact is that we don’t know how widespread it is because the law and society refuses to recognise female-on-male vaginal rape. Furthermore if they were in a compromising position, the woman had free will and she chose to violate the man and therefore it is her and her alone who is culpable for her actions.

          “”Driven to suicide”. How do you “drive” a man to suicide?”

          It’s ironic that someone claims to be a soldier and yet asks a question which implies that the concept of breaking someone is alien to them.

          “You and most MRAs seem to completely neglect one important thing. Men have free will. Men can walk away from a situation. Men can hang up the phone if a woman is emotionally abusing them. Suicide is a personal choice. It’s a decision. Men should not allow external influences to have any control over their core being.”

          On the contrary, I have never denied the fundamental human trait of free will. You on the other hand, deny the notion that men are from Earth rather the Krypton and therefore they will have vulnerabilities which can be preyed on and that if the right vulnerabilities are preyed on, a man will be overpowered. This in no way shames the male survivor out the other end of it – it simply means they’re a human being. The fact is that how free will is exercised depends entirely on the tools a person has, but why let a man’s humanity and other inconvenient facts get in the way of your argument right?

        • Dude…I specifically said “how many men have had their penis chopped off or been set on fire”. I did not ask how many men have been struck by their significant other (which means they suck at vetting women). You keep bringing up the same few “trigger” stories, then when someone argues about one of those specific trigger stories you keep throwing out, you claim they are rape apoligists, misandrists, and a bunch of other feminist-sounding words. Here’s what you’re repeated to the point it’s just meaningless words to anyone reading through this thread:

          “Pedophiles rape 12 year old boys and the boys are forced to pay child support!”

          How many times has that happened? How many times? I’m not asking how many men in the entire history of humanity have slept with older women, I’m asking how often does that specific thing happen? I bet you’ve repeated that line far more times than the crime itself has occurred.

          “Women drug men, chop their penis off and throw it in the garbage disposal!”

          Once again, I would bet money you have repeated it more times that it has happened. But by me pointing that out, you are going to call me a DV apologist, just like a feminist would. White women get kidnapped, gang raped and murdered by groups of blacks. It doesn’t even make the news. Some punk black kid gets shot by a spic and it’s a National Crisis. That’s injustice, sir. And far more common than men getting their manhood chopped off.

          “Women douse men with gas and set them on fire!”

          Again…how often? You try to make it sound as if every man should fear for his life at the mere sight of a woman. You embrace victim-hood. Men need to recognize the dangers and make good choices about what women, and people in general, they surround themselves with. Some situations really could have been avoided. But that’s like telling a woman who got raped when she was stumbling around downtown half nude at 3am that she may have made a bad decision or two. It just makes me a rape apologist.

      • Seems like you’re whining for attention rather than actually changing your own life and your own fate. You are sporting the exact same lines of logic to dr illusion as a feminist screaming at cops that theyre victim blaiming, rape apologists. When really all theyre doing is issuissung warnings how certain types of behavior will put you at certain types of risk.

        A victim is someone weak of body and mind who put themselves into situations they were not able to handle.

        A survivor is someone of strength who is able to overcome situations completely outside their control.

        Example: Child beaten by parents, who is able to overcome and move on with their life without needing support from others after they’ve done so – survivor.

        Man who marries a wife that emotionally abuses him and physically harms him, yet he doesnt leave. Victim and weak. Also stupid and weak willed for not properly vetting his wife. I’d say the aame of a woman marrying a male abuser. Stupid and weak. Victim.

        Look, part of the definition of victim is that you are too weak and were overcome in some way. You can scream all you want but, again, you’re railing against reality and letting the people doing the damage to continue to control the lives of their victims rather than give the the guidance and space to grow into their strength as a survivor. Relying on institutions and others for strength while pointing the finger of blaim away from the person that put themselves in the situation through poor choices (aka the victim) will continue to lead to bad choices from a weak person who feels abused by the system while constantly asking the system, “Please sir, may I have another?”

        • Actually your response is a complete prima facie. I am and have been steadily taking steps towards overcoming my past – both conventional and unconventional – for quite some time now. I simply haven’t talked about it because it was irrelevant to what was being discussed.

          However I’m one of the lucky ones – I didn’t need a MRM to see when I was a teenager that something was wrong with the system. As a small child even, I drove my mother mad because I questioned why parts of society which were flawed existed and she didn’t have the answers.

          So when I was recovering, which I still am to some extent, I was able to recognise that I had been the victim of abuse and then for me, the next step was how to make the transition to survivor, what I needed to do, what tools I needed to do it – which ironically makes your argument a complete oxymoron.

          However in terms of survivors, I’m an exception rather than the rule. Most people are wired to comply with the system rather than question it. Most men are told day in day out that only they can do harm and a woman can do no harm; that male consent is automatic, whilst female consent is conditional; that “real men” are never victims and victims are never “real men”. In such a society, men are told they can never be victims and if they are, there is something wrong with them. If they do dare speak up, then they are mocked for it or what they went through is trivialised.

          The problem is that if a man can never accept that he has been the victim of something, then he will never be able to move to being a survivor.

          You’re 100% correct that a survivor moves from strength to strength (it’s about the only part of your argument that is sound), however a huge part of that is knowing yourself and recognising both the tools and time you will need to properly move forwards from strength to strength and working in terms of what their situation requires – rather than what society demands.

          You claim that there is a fundamental difference between being a victim and a survivor, yet you by your argument, wish to advocate for men never really being able to move to the survivor phase by insisting on oversimplifying male abuse situations (like how being abused as an adult might be affected by having been abused as a child) and maintaining a culture which shames male victims into silence, by looking for any and every single reason for blaming them for the abuse. The fact is that issues of reckless behaviour on the part of the victim/survivor can never and should never mitigate the culpability of the abuser. In taking this stance, you are proving yourself to be far more a part of the problem than part of the solution.

        • I’ll also specifically deal with point 2 here.

          Your attitude is precisely why feminist ideology is so prevalent today.

          First of all, your view of masculinity completely dehumanises men so that they are conditioned to solely exist as providers and protectors – where this in turns is measured and glorified by male sexual prowess.

          The fact that for example, 28000 men could die building the Panama Canal for example, is not a tragic loss of human life no matter what the end result was – but simply “men being men [ie disposable].

          The fact is that you and every other tradcon out there lives under the insane delusion that all men magically come from the planet Krypton – to gleefully burst your bubble, they actually come from earth.

          That makes them human and one one scale or another, vulnerable to harm.

          Certainly men can make decisions which make them vulnerable, however that never absolves the abuser of personal culpability in any way shape or form. Neither does it mean that when a man iis harmed, that he deserved it.

          Yet that is exactly what you have come out and said.

          If a man in an abusive relationship fails to simply “just leave”, he is somehow too blame.

          I suppose someone severely brainwashed by a cult is at fault for not simply manning up too.

          Furthermore so what if a man is weak on some scale- if a man is the victim of being shot to death, does than make him “weak” because he wasn’t somehow able to magicallly deflect the bullet? According to your argument it does.

          The fact is that men are human beings and therefore as we are human beings, we are all weak to some degree or another. If you want to dispute that, then feel free to point me to any scientific journal article which has conclusively proven that men are intrinsically invulnerable in ev ery way, shape or form. Good luck with that as no such credible scientific journal article exists.

          But then what should anyone expect from someone who is a devout adherent to the misandrist dogma of stoicism.

          Like all stoics, you have no genuine interest in men thriving – you are solely interested in men repressing trauma rather than dealing with it – regardless of the toll it ultimately takes – and in men being nothing more than disposable slaves to gynocentrism.

          Sure, you wrap it up in tradcon glorification of the alpha male ideal, but as the old saying goes, “if you polish a turd, it’s still a turd”.

          As for your ludicrous assertions that there shouldn’t be services to provide for male survivors of abuse, by that logic, essential services should never exist – that there should be no public hospitals and no safety net for those who need it so they can ultimately heal and thrive. Following that line of logic, especially when considering the Galton Eugenics lecture of 1936 by Sir Julian Huxley, takes you dangerously into the territory of eugenics and in turn, an ideological association with the Nazis.

          But then let’s face it, the tradcon view of men, much like the fundamental feminist view of men, has always been a genocidal one when men are concerned.

  13. Really illusion it is not terribly macho to run home to your blog for a circlejerk when an argument doesn’t go your way.

    • Ummm..I didn’t “run home to my blog for a circle jerk.” I was getting bored because I was drunk and it was time for me to get some sleep (I passed out at 1pm and got up for work at 4pm today) and I wasn’t getting replies here fast enough to keep my amusement up, so I went and shared this little gem with my readers. I do enjoy getting the input of men with spines after reading all this “woe is me, I’m a victim” nonsense.

      This is not an argument, and it isn’t going anyone’s way. It’s an amusing clash of opposing ideals that gives me something to do, and my readers will no doubt get a kick out of. Neither of us will change the mind of the other, nor are we attempting to, in all actuality. I can predict every response from “Andrew”, and I’m pretty sure he has a good idea of what I’m going to say, because I know my enemy, as does he.

      Neither of us is going to budge from our beliefs, but this little dialogue may cause someone who is on the fence to shift one way or the other. That’s the real battle. We are just using each other as sounding boards to get out full arguments out in the open to sway the hearts and minds of the people.

      Me for Patriarchy and social Darwinism, Andrew for Egilitarianisn and Men’s Rights.

      And I own my web site, I pay the bills, so I can write whatever I bloody well please. I don’t need anyone’s permission or approval. Nor do I care what someone like you people would consider “macho”.

      • Right so you turned to drink because I got a little too close to the truth for your coping mechanisms (I knew I would) and then ranted about it in the safety of your blog where you can go on a power trip? That’s “conquering” how exactly again? Oh and fyi, the reason you weren’t getting responses was that I was asleep- yes yes I know, how “efeminate” of a man to actually get some sleep right.

        I’m not surprised at all that you would fail to grasp that you’ve already lost this one – you’ve just dug your head in the sand. There is a vast difference between a sound argument and living in denial – you are doing the later.

        I’m also not surprised by some of your comments that you would advocate for men being disposable slaves to women (because your glorified BS version of “male patriarchy” only ever applied to the top 1%ers) or that you would have sympathetic leanings to the Nazis through being a staunch supporter of social Darwinism.

        But hey, bu all means sing from the rooftops that you oppose MRAs – let feminists see that the white supremacist movement has nothing to do with the MRM had give MRAs something to clearly point to when feminists do try and conflate the two. Oh one other thing, you and your ilk enjoy slowly dying off, which is precisely what you will do, much like the dinosaurs. Meanwhile those of us who are far more enlightened will actually change the world for the better.

        • From all of your comments on this blog all you’re doing two things, whether you know it or not.

          1. You’re applying the same victim status and socialist ideas of ‘we are all equal’ to men instead of women. You whining about ‘the matriarchy’ sounds as idiotic as women whining about ‘the patriarchy’.

          2. You’re playing king of the hill for the mound of dung that is equal rights to let the actions and world views of others define a person rather than owning your own bad decisions and moving on with your life. Yes, things are worse for men. We get that. But you’re asking institutions for solutions instead of finding your own.

          Newsflash!

          Institutions care only about the life of the institution, not any individual involved, not even the ones at the top. Anyone depending on institutions to solve their problems should honestly mark themselves down as a weak, co-dependent enabler to the narcissistic workings of institutions.

          Yes, the government is an institution as well. If you want the government to solve your problems and ask them into your life in any way, you’re begging them to solve the problem as they see fit for the good of the government. Not the good of yourself and certainly not any form of real justice.

          That is the way the world works. Deal with it

        • I “turned to drink” because I’m an alcoholic. I drink every day. You had nothing to do with it. I went back to my own blog because I didn’t have anyone to debate here, as you said, you were asleep. No, getting sleep isn’t feminine. Should I give up my own blog and live in the comments section here to avoid looking like I’m running away? I’m obviously not running away.

          “Ranted in the safety of my blog”

          As if I’m not safe here? First off, MRAs in my experience are timid and non-violent, so I’m safe pretty much anywhere when it comes to guys like you.

          More than anything else, I am anti-socialism. I will fight socialism and communism in every form I find it taking. I consider the MRM to be a socialist group, and that’s why I’m willing to expend time and energy to fight it on every front. And you talk like a socialist.

        • And enter the self-confessed Beta – the lying, hypocritical enforcers and enablers of feminism.

          But let’s deal with your points individually so I can derivee a great deal of pleasure through hanging you by your own rope.

          1. Your point here is a complete prima facie and a blatant lie and we both know it. What I have done is argue that men deserved to be viewed just as much as human beings as women do and are as deserving of justice as women are.

          The fact is that what I am saying is much further removed from feminist dogma than what you are saying. The fact is that feminists violently oppose the notion of any genuine acknowledgement of male victims, just as you and your tradcon ilk do.

          Feminists villify all men as perpetual abusers and their usual response, when confronted with male on male violent assault is that it is a case of “men doing it to themselves”. Tradcons meanwhile ridicule and trivialise male victims for failing to embody the alpha ideal.

          The truth is that both you and your tradcon ilk, and feminists alike, despise men as anything other than dehumanised slaves to gynocentrism.

          But then why wouldn’t a self-confessed beta be so viscerally opposed to this – after all it’s the Betas who are openly the first in line to tell 12 year old boys to “man up to their responsibilities” when it comes to the issue of male child rape victims paying child support to female pedophiles the moment that said pedophile gives birth as the result of raping a child.

          Of course small surprise that tradcons are typically militant right wingers who are just as ready to support VAWA as – where anyone on the moderate right or who is centralist in their politics (I make no secret that I am a centralist), HAS to be a card carrying closet communist. After all like all political extremists, anyone who differs even slightly from their brand of “conventional wisdom” must be “the enemy” right?

        • Right so in other words Dr Illusion, you talk about men being conquerers, and yet you have openly admitted that you are in fact conquered by your alcoholism with no sign of that changing in the foreseeable future.

          Thankyou – you’ve provided a brilliant example of how much of a misandrist farce the “conquerer” claims of radical stoicists like yourselves truly are and the toxic form of maleness they perpetuate.

  14. […] Why you never attempt to appease the feminists. […]

  15. […] What tradcons do in this case is blur the standard English definition of the word, “equality&#…  What has happened here is that the tradcons have completely failed to actually analyze the situation.  If you look at the context in which a MRA talks about equality vs. a feminist talking about equality, it’s obvious that the MRA and the feminist mean two completely different things.  Plus, the MRA is honest while the feminist is dishonest.  To say otherwise like the tradcons do, only helps the feminists because tradcons are implicitly saying that feminists are honest and speaking standard English.  Both of those are wrong, and a big part of the anti-feminist argument is to show that feminists are redefining language when it suits them and that feminists are dishonest.  Tradcons are sabotaging actual anti-feminist efforts. […]

  16. Oh and to the 2 circle-jerking dunces, Dr illusion and Leap of a Beta; as common sense doesn’t seem to be your strong suit, judging by your circlejerk blog post I just read, allow me to point out the bleeding obvious.

    You can’t deal with a problem until you acknowledge it exists. What seems to have escaped both your double digit IQ brains, is that society refuses to acknowledge that female–on-male rape exists (let alone that it’s widespread) or that female on male domestic violence is widespread. All the talk about constructive steps in the world is utterly pointless until you get people to recognise a problem exists.

    There’s nothing “wallowing” about what I’m doing in any way, shape or form. In fact as the utterly low act you puled in response proves, taking the course of action I am, constantly opens me up to a perpetual risk of ridicule and secondary woundings.

    The reason I do it is because if I speak up, then there’s a chance that someone else who it’s happening to might recognise that what they’re enduring is the fault of their abuser, that they don’t deserve it and that they’re not alone. With a bit of luck, they then speak out, and the cycle then repeats exponentially until it reaches a point where society can no longer bury its head in the sand and is forced to accept that there is in fact a problem. Once that step has been reached, you’re at a place where you can move on to systematic solutions – but only once that step has been reached.

    If the sense of your own masculinity you had wasn’t so completely and utterly insecure, you would both actually recognise that.

  17. I don’t get this idea that men “man up” because other men tell them to.

    IMHO, if you can’t tell a pompous man to get lost, then you’re not a man. A man might remind me of values and principles I believe in, but bend to his will just because he’s an over-bearing ass? Not ‘no’, but ‘HELL NO.’

    • First up, there’s a difference there in acts. Telling someone they’re pompous though is getting straight to the facts. Its a criticism that’s straight up character based without resorting to genitalia based emasculation, and pressing the socially installed hot button of masculine-self-image.

      Furthermore what you’re missing is that you’re looking at if from a situation perspective where the man on the receiving end is at full strength and not completely traumatised in some way.

      A man at full strength will easily be able to tell people to go screw themselves if they cross the line. A man who is broken though is a very different story.

  18. […] we have been talking about equality a lot.  The reason for that is because both feminists and tradcons have finally admitted to being against it.  In both cases, they have explicitly admitted to being […]

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

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: