Traditional Conservative or Feminist?

Blogger Dennis Mangan kindly linked to my post 40 years of ultimatums in his post The Backlash Against Feminism:

Most conservatives just haven’t understood this, mostly in my opinion out of willful ignorance, and we’re regularly treated to columns by the likes of Kay Hymowitz and William Bennett telling young men that they need to “man up”, do “the right thing”, and marry. Conservatives through the years have generally offered only the most token opposition to feminism, said opposition appearing to be nil these days. (This is one factor in the emergence of an alternative right.)

This is of course just a teaser.  Check out his full post.  I’ll still be here when you get back.

As has happened here, the topic spurred on a vigorous discussion in the comments section.  One thing which struck me reading the discussion however is how difficult it can be to distinguish Feminists from Traditional Conservatives.  Things have been fairly heated here in the last few weeks, so I thought I would lighten things up just a bit with a blogging version of a TV quiz show.  Help me out here;  which commenters are Traditional Conservatives, and which ones are Feminists.

I’ll start with commenter Severn, who responded to a quote of me stating that Feminists and Traditional Conservatives had formed a tacit agreement:

I don’t buy it. The people I see on the right making the “why do men suck so much?” argument are always neocons, people like Kay Hymowitz and Bill Bennett. Neocons usually seem to borrow their views – apart from those on foreign policy – from the left.

Sorry, blogger’s prerogative.  I’m going to go ahead and call this one.  He has to be a Trad Con since he is defending them.  I’ll let the rest of you have a shot at the next one, I promise.  Next up is Dan:

There is a solution, and it is as radical as feminism. That solution is hard religious orthodoxy to the point of fundamentalism.

I am in a religious marriage and I would have to call myself thoroughly happy. I went to an Ivy League University and graduated with honors. I am a fairly successful federal employee. We will soon have four kids so far and she is just thirty. There are no plans yet to stop having kids. My tribe is increasing. My parents delightedly help with every bone in their body. They love the grandkids.

I know I promised, but at first I didn’t think it would be this easy.  Dan is clearly a Trad Con.  We could quit now but I’ll go through a few more quotes just for entertainment’s sake.  Here is another excerpt from the same comment by Dan:

Men can take control of this. Just don’t be afraid to be single for a while. Work your butt off to get degrees and a good job and otherwise become desirable and then make traditional-mindedness a core criterion. Don’t dabble with dating anybody who is not a good candidate your traditional wife. And tell her your plans for her to be your stay-at-home-while-the-kids-are-small motherly wife clear early. If it scares her away or freaks her out, good. She won’t waste your time or your money…

P.S.
This business about men being taken to the cleaners in marriage is BS. If she is willing to have your kids, and you can continue your lineage through her, that is massive! I’d much rather get married and have kids and get divorced than never have kids at all. Although I also hope not to see divorce. Still, people who shy away from the whole thing are weenies.

Yup.  I called it!  Make sure she knows upfront she will be staying at home.  Also Suck it up men, even if your wife does the worst to you, you should call yourself lucky.  That has Trad Con all over it.

Here’s the next one, and it’s Dan again!:

I am the earlier poster, happily married, growing tribe etc. Those who think in terms of male superiority, and misogyny will get you nowhere.

Think of orthodox Jews. Women have equal importance and value, just different goals.

The stiff cultures of Italy, Japan and Korea, where you often just try to shove male superiority down women’s throats rather than have equal but different roles are dying out. Heck, even in Iran the women have clamped their uteri somewhat shut.

Ya gotta have a shared religious vision and its gotta be sincere or you are out of the game. Faking it for misogyny’s sake just puts you in league with *those* people.

Is it too late to change my vote?  That sounded almost Feminist.  Well, even if this Dan guy goes Fem, at least I can count on Severn.  He is up next, and shares his impression of me:

Yeah. Sounds to me like the usual game boy hostility towards Christians. I clicked through the links of his argument with the Christian women, and I don’t think he got the better of it.

Women who divorce and remarry are “whores”? Really? I think it’s more than possible to argue that no-fault divorce has been a bad thing for men, women, children, and society in general without claiming that women (but not men) who divorce and remarry are whores. There’s way too much emotional hyperbole surrounding these topics.

And it’s not just a one off instance of rhetorical excess. Words like “whores” and “whorish” come up again and again in his and his commenters remarks. Along with the “cock carousel” which all those dirty dirty whores are supposedly riding.

I had such high hopes for Severn, but then he broke out the Womens Studies phraseology and even endorsed serial polyandry.  He followed up in a later comment:

Less measured that “whorish whores riding the cock carousel”? What exactly would this less measured response look like – killing prostitutes and dumping their bodies in the forest?

I used to wonder about the mentality of guys who did that. It’s all become a lot clearer since I started reading game blogs. There are some very warped men out there whose image of women is based entirely on porn, girls-gone-wild videos, and Sex In The City. They’re dirty, dirty, dirty sluts and they deserve to be punished!

No worries though, because Orthodox Dan will redeem himself.  I just know it:

I don’t know this Ferdinand Bardamu guy but he seems like a whining loser.

If you are a winner, you can make a marriage work and have a large clan of your descendants to love you in your old age. I have to say, good girls are not impossible to spot and if you’ve got it, you marry such a girl and Ferdinand Bardamu emphatically does not have it. Sucks to be Ferdinand Bardamu…

(1) Not all churches are the same. If a church has a weak marriage culture, change churches. There are tons to choose from. Most people know 10x more about car models than they do about church models, which is lame.

(2) A 62% chance of success is tolerable. (Remember that these Christians are marrying much younger; account for that and the D-rate would actually be much lower.) If you get divorced, you won’t die. You’ll just get back in the saddle like a real man. Besides, if misfortune has you back on the market in your forties, you will find the numbers are strongly in your favor as a man and love will be yours for the taking.

Finally!  I never thought I would be so glad to read man up and marry those future divorcées you loser!  Dan is clearly a Trad Con who was suffering from a temporary moment of Feminist weakness.  More likely someone else was just posting under his name to confuse us.  Either way, Dan assumes the problem is people just aren’t finding the good churches.  I’m not convinced, because I have a standing offer on this blog to give free publicity to any church which is serious about marriage and none have yet come forward.  I’m so pleased with Dan I’ll let it slide though and even put him up next (emphasis mine):

In Japan the religion is work and then the men drink with their coworkers until 1 am every night of the week. Japanese men help with nothing at home — they are one more kid to take care of, while American husbands help a lot. Doing housework is a good way for a guy to have lots of kids in 2011. Let her pop out babies while you do a lot of chores.

It is not womanly for a woman to be barren. Likewise, it is not manly for a man to be childless.

Ouch.  Is it just me, or did Dan just mix Feminist slogans with his man up shaming language?  And didn’t he say his wife is a traditional stay at home housewife?  Why is he taking on the role of traditional provider and doing the housework?  I mentioned this to Mrs. Dalrock, and she replied:

It’s nice when you help out a bit like when you clean a difficult pot, but if a husband does much more it just says kitchen bitch.

Next up is Severn, riding to the rescue of sluts everywhere with some expertly crafted shaming language:

It’s not the language which I find excessive, it’s the shrieking emotionalism. That’s expressed via language of course, but the language is not the problem.

Guy’s who go on (and on, and on, and on, and on, and on) about “dirty whorish sluts who ride the cock carousel while also being fat and ugly unlike those cute Asians, and by the way, why don’t they sleep with ME?” not only come across as losers. They come across as irrational and unstable. I certainly do not expect people to only say things which I agree with. I do expect people to have at least a tenuous grasp on reality and to say things which can be objectively analyzed and intelligently discussed. “Cock carousel”? It’s like referring to Jews as “blood-sucking parasites”. The idea is not to stimulate thought but to shut it down.

And it succeeds, just look at the comments on this thread. A lot of heat and not much light.

I have to confess I’m stumped on this.  I don’t remember if this is Feminist or Trad Con.  I’m thinking both.  At any rate, Severn weighs in again with a helpful clarification on which camp he is in:

Since I’m one of those social conservatives, perhaps you can tell me which wrong tree you think I’m barking up.

(The phrase “social conservative” is redundant, btw)

That would seem to settle the matter.  Except then Dennis Mangan called him out on comparing the psychological mindset of gamesters to serial killers.  This brought the following doubling down:

No, this comes from the commenter who noticed the distinct psychological similarity between men who see all women as “dirty whorish sluts and sluttish whores who love COCK!” and the actual men who are serial killers of prostitutes.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Gilligan more upset at slut shaming.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Bill Bennett, Church Apathy About Divorce, Fatherhood, Feminists, Finding a Spouse, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

135 Responses to Traditional Conservative or Feminist?

  1. Elspeth says:

    If my husband had to do that much housework, he would just as well send me off to work, LOL. He has a conviction about a big family and a full time wife, but if he has to do half the chores, how is he any different from those women who complain about working “the second shift.”

    Dan misunderstands the nature of patriarchy, methinks. Not that a man can’t help his wife out from time to time. And when she works outside the home, he should definitely help out more.

    But I lean toward the opinion of Mrs. Dalrock.

  2. The Continental Op says:

    I’m a radical restorationist authoritarian monarchist. Not a “conservative.”

  3. greyghost says:

    Dalrock you could be a stand up comedian.

  4. Celeste says:

    How much we coddle women, if they are incapable of both childbearing and housework. How did the human species ever make it to 2011?

  5. DW says:

    “And didn’t he say his wife is a traditional stay at home housewife? Why is he taking on the role of traditional provider and doing the housework?”

    Good point. It kind of defeats the purpose if she’s a SAHM when he’s splitting the housework with her. Why bother, if that’s going to be the case?

  6. PA says:

    To give the benefit of the doubt to the “trad con” commenters: on their subjective level, if they truly are in Marriage 1.0, their attitudes make sense. Where they fail is in not reaizing that their situation is not typical of what a normal young man faces on the mating market today.

    This is also typical of older men who either due to their pre-feminit marriage, or (presumed) celibacy liek Auster, just don;t get it.

  7. PA says:

    To give the benefit of the doubt to the “trad con” commenters: on their subjective level, if they truly are in Marriage 1.0, their attitudes make sense. Where they fail is in not reaizing that their situation is not typical of what a normal young man faces on the mating market today.

    This is also typical of older men who either due to their pre-feminist marriage, or their (presumed) celibacy like Auster, just don’t get it.

  8. missmandible says:

    Sorry Dan, but religion is dead in the water.

    You compare Orthodox Jewry and formerly Catholic societies such as Italy. That is a bad comparison. Look at the state of Jewry as a whole – it is not much better than Italy, France, etc. A more apt comparison would be between Orthodox Jews and Traditionalist Catholics.

    Religion leads nowhere because it is based upon a false premise. I sincerely wish to avoid a reinstatement of ‘patriarchy’ by coercive methods – but, looking at the state of things today, it looks like that is the only feasible option.

    Please prove me wrong.

  9. zhai2nan2 says:

    Conservatism is about tradition.

    If you don’t uphold tradition, you’re not very conservative.

    Thus it’s pleonastic to say “traditional conservative” when one can simply say “conservative.”

  10. missmandible, religion is not dead. People have been saying that since the Enlightenment. On a worldwide basis, Christianity is burgeoning. America is not the world. Judaism is a special case, partly because Jews don’t proselytise.

  11. Chris says:

    @msmandible.

    Well, wrong. For the correct value of Religion. Now, the value of Religion that will survive is we will do what we believe regardless of any laws you choose to make. At present the group who shows this most clearly is the Islamics — who kill women who shame their husbands, marry their daughters to cousins when they are 14, and keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen (The men are happily banging co-eds on the carousel while the wife sits bruised and bleeding at home).

    Now there is a bunch of hard core Christians who will die (and I mean that literally) for their faith, and will riot for their faith, and will expect fidelity, and shame. However, they live in Nigeria. In Egypt. In Korea.

    And all those people see the problem with America as a tolerance of immorality. When the church discovers intolerance again — part of the historical message that there is but one way to salvation — then the wannabes will fall away and the Church will become reliable again.

    The carousel has no moral authority, and will not survive hard times. Which are coming.

  12. missmandible says:

    Religion may be growing in numbers, but religious faith is an untenable set of positions to hold. All policy should proceed from the assumption that human beings are products of natural processes.

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, nice find. Once again we see men confusing patriarchy with White Knighting.

    I’ll repeat what I said a couple of threads back:

    A patriarch is a man who can say “no” to a woman and make it stick.

    (What say you, Elspeth? Agree or disagree? I value your opinion.)

    I don’t see many men like that in the hugely amusing thread at Mangan’s.

  14. missmandible, I am an evolutionist and religious.
    Chris is right. There is fight in the Christian dog yet.

  15. AR, I have a wife who asks permission to buy things. Does that count?

  16. trent13 says:

    hm, I don’t know, seems like there are different types of SoCons, because all of the SoCons I personally know aren’t going to blame the worlds problems on men – if women sleep around, it’s on their soul. I don’t get it, why blame the opposite sex for something the one sex did? Everyone’s accountable for their own souls and every body gets theirs in the end. and the sex thing, that sex is evil: no, all the trad conservatives I know enjoy it immensely and use it frequently. I find it bizarre that there should be such a disparity of opinion between people who you disparagingly group all in the same class. I don’t doubt that there are SoCons that deserve your censure, I have come across a few that deserve it too, but I don’t bother with trying to label them. With labels come assumptions about what other people believe. I don’t like people making assumptions about me, so I try not to do it with others.

  17. Aqua Net says:

    “Ouch. Is it just me, or did Dan just mix Feminist slogans with his man up shaming language? And didn’t he say his wife is a traditional stay at home housewife? Why is he taking on the role of traditional provider and doing the housework? I mentioned this to Mrs. Dalrock, and she replied:

    It’s nice when you help out a bit like when you clean a difficult pot, but if a husband does much more it just says kitchen bitch.”

    Mrs. Dalrock only has two kids, while Dan is talking about keep his wife pregnant most of the time, which means they have A LOT more kids than Mrs. Dalrock does, hence A LOT more household chores that need to get done while someone else minds the kids and babies.

    And yes, that is a HUGE selling point to Asian women – that American men and Western men in general do more cooking and household chores than Asian guys do. If they were just going to get another Asian man but with pale (or dark) skin, why bother with a non-Asian man in the first place?
    Rather its the BEHAVIOUR of Western men that the Asian women who are attracted to them, are attracted to.

    So Dalrock, you DO NOT want to sell that point short. You may be preventing some otherwise good and helpful beta American guys from getting that much coveted Asian wife.

    Missmandable, I just returned from a Buddhist retreat, over 1,000 Americans in attendance and we had to turn people away at the door due to lack of room! I can asure you that religion is NOT dead in the USA.

  18. jack says:

    Those men are not men. They are pussy-pedastalizing twits.

  19. Aqua Net says:

    Trad Con or Feminist?

    My opinion is that government needs to stay OUT of the private lives and choices of adults. That means that if one has a child oow, then she will deal with that without government intervention.

    So what does that make me? I’d say an Adultist.

    Adultists believe that adults have the right to make their own independent decisions and deal with the consequences.

    The problem with Trad-Cons is that some of them will cry hysterics over “Big Government” but then they want their Big Ideology (often religious based) to take the place of Big Government as the “nanny” of grown-ass adults!

    I don’t want government in my bedroom, but I don’t want Trad Cons in it either.

  20. missmandible says:

    David Collard: not nearly enough fight. The movers and shakers of the 20th century were all secular. Nothing will scare the shits out of the complacent left than a militant, secular social conservatism.

  21. missmandible says:

    Plus, Christianity is too prone to pedestalization to be useful. A significant portion of the left’s moral authority comes from the example of Jesus. Jesus was like Michael Moore: what’s right is determined by what makes one feel good in the moment, without due consideration for long term socioeconomic effect. See: welfare.

    And to be honest, a successful movement might have to cut moral corners a few times. Christianity does not allow this.

    Also, abortion rights. WTF, Christians? Do you want more children from irresponsible parents being born into this world?

  22. missmandible

    Christ was famous for “not taking account of men” and offending people.

    The movers and shakers of the Twentieth Century (Nazis, Communists) are all gone. There is still a Pope in Rome.

  23. Anonymous Reader says:

    David Collard
    AR, I have a wife who asks permission to buy things. Does that count?

    Dunno. If you tell her “no”, what happens next?

  24. She usually obeys me.

  25. flenser says:

    One thing which struck me reading the discussion however is how difficult it can be to distinguish Feminists from Traditional Conservatives.

    Has it ever occurred to you that, perhaps, you’re just not very bright?

  26. Aqua Net says:

    “Nothing will scare the shits out of the complacent left than a militant, secular social conservatism.”

    What do you mean by “secular”? In your opinion is any American who is not a Christian, a secular? What about all the other religions that people are into here. Buddhism being the fastest growing one amongst adult converts? Do you count them as “secular” too? If so, why?

    Or is a secular an agnostic or atheist in your view?

  27. ray says:

    Religion may be growing in numbers, but religious faith is an untenable set of positions to hold.
    All policy should proceed from the assumption that human beings are products of natural processes

    well there ya haves it folks, ms mandible — like so many of her ssisters — just set global policy for you, isnt that thoughtful? cause guess which gender embodies “natural proceses”?

    you have no father in heaven indeed, as ms mandible, in her luminosity, declares him “untenable”

    pretty soon she’ll make sure you have no fathers on earth either

  28. missmandible, I think you are a tease. And Amanda Marcotte does have quite a jaw, but so does Thirteen from House.

    Sorry to be potentially ungallant, but I suspect you are really mrmandible.

  29. missmandible says:

    Actually, I, miss mandible, am Amanda Marcotte’s alter ego. When Amanda Marcotte retires in the evening, she does not go to sleep – she assumes the identity of MISSMANDIBLE, an intrepid anti-feminist provocateur and agitator. With the power of her awesome jaw and high testosterone she is able to crush any who might stand in her way.

    ***

    Yeah, I’m a dude.

  30. I thought so. You debate like a man.

  31. Celeste says:

    I appreciate Dalrock immensely for calling out his own. I think what’s forgotten here is that Dalrock and company probably identify as “trad cons” and “so cons.” He’s just pointing out the flaws in the greater movement. Would that we could all be so fair minded to our own isms.

  32. G.L. Piggy says:

    Dalrock,

    I’ve been following all of this, but don’t know what to think. You’ve made interesting arguments which I agree with quite a bit, but I’m not really content with the wide umbrella being used to cover “social conservative”. And I don’t see how they can be compared to feminists. I mean, feminists are pro-abortion, socons aren’t. Feminists complain about the patriarchy, socons don’t. Pro-sex feminists accept the “Go Grrl!” posture that encourages sexual expression. Socons do not. Anti-sex feminists favor lesbianism, socons do not.

    I think that socons do pedestalize the notion of virginal women, but that’s just it, in their proscription for young men to “Man up” they are assuming that women are womaning up too. If anything socons are flat-out naive about the way the world currently works, but this is a different type of criticism than what I see being aimed at them now.

  33. ruddyturnstone says:

    “A patriarch is a man who can say ‘no’ to a woman and make it stick.”

    “I have a wife who asks permission to buy things. Does that count?”

    “If you tell her ‘no,’ what happens next?”

    “She usually obeys me.”

    No, you are not a patriarch, because you can’t make it stick. For one thing, if she “usually obeys” you, that means sometimes she doesn’t. A patriarch is obeyed or there are serious consequences. Also, it could well be that she simply agrees with you many of the time you don’t give her “permission” to buy something. In other words, she is persuaded, not obediant..

    But that is not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that you can’t, in fact, “make it stick.” Neither can Mark Richardson. You are only “patriarchs” because your wife “agrees” to let you act like one, for the time being.. Which means you are not patriarchs at all. A patriarch is a patriarch because his authority is backed up by law and by social and cultural norms.. Not because his wife “agrees,” as an individual, on a contingent basis, to let him act like one.

    The laws certainly do not back you up (and, no living in Australia does not mean they do….as was pointed out by another poster when you played last that card, and to whose post you had no rebuttal…Australia is not really an outlier when it comes to feminism, marriage 2.0, crazy DV standards, risk free false rape accusations, and the rest of it). At any time, your wife can seek no fault divorce and screw you financially and in terms of your relationship with your kids (and the latter is true despite the nominal equality allegedly built into your custody laws…we all know how such laws are implemented in practice). At any time she can destroy your entire life with false accusations of violence, rape, or “abuse.” The law permits her to do all of that, indeed, it practically encourages her to do it.

    And neither is your claim to patriarchal status backed up by the customs of your society. Indeed, Richardson all but explicitly admits that he is part of a small subculture. And so do you, when it comes right down to it. In addition, and quite revealingly, folks like you are constantly referring to other small sub cultures, such as the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Traditional Catholics, and the like. In the larger culture and society in which you, Richardson,and your respective wives live, they would find plenty of support for gong EPL on you, or worse, should they get it in their heads a notion to do so.

    And you have no means whatsoever of making your refusal, your disapproval, your saying no, “stick.” Not legal, not cultural and not social. You are role playing, much like folks who integrate BDSM into their relationships. No one is actually anyone’s “slave” in the latter group, just as you are not actually a patriarch.

    Personally, as with guys who claim to Game their wives, I have no problem with you doing what you do in your already existing marriage. But, as with Richardson, and the alleged wife Gamers, I have a big problem when anyone advises young men in general to marry on the false basis that they can be a patrirarch in the privacy of their marriage. Just like a wife Gamer can only Game his wife to the extent she allows him to, so a false patriarch can only say “no” to his wife to the extent that she permits him to. Both groups are counting on their wives to reject society-wide mores and to refrain from exercizing the real power that the law gives them, not their husbands.

    At least with the defined subcultures such as the Amish, etc, there is a community, an organic group, which, to some extent, can maintain informal, non legal and non society wide forms of authority over women. But folks like you and Richardson can’t even offer that. All you can say is “be really, really careful, find a virgin, find a church goer, etc, etc”, marry her, have kids with her and hope for the best.” And that is terrible advice.

    Don’t marry. Don’t cohabit. Don’t procreate. Deny women access to your wealh and income. Deny them the power to ruin your life. Deny them the kids they want you to provide for them (in both sense of the word), but which they then have no qualms about taking from you, and screwing up, if they feel like it. Resist the siren song of women, and their knowing and unkonwing accomplices in the Trad Con and Wife Gaming camps. Don’t participate in Marriage 2,0. And that is the only marriage that is really on offer. Go your own way. Live your own life in freedom, and by so doing you are also helpihg to make a better world. You are helping to force women to pay the price for their selfishness. You are giving them an incentive to change their ways, and the laws and mores they have foisted on society. By marrying them, you are giving in to them and to their injustice. You will not be a patriarch, you will be a slave.

  34. Aqua Net says:

    SoCons may be naive about the way the world works now, but I think any generation is naive about the generations after them. Someone here suggested that “pretty girls” who can date alpha boyfriends are not sluts and they “slut shame” other (less physically gifted) girls who “sleep around”. Whoever wrote that must’ve been at least 25, but I’m guessing even older, and totally out of touch with the 12-15 year old Junior High School set of today. Pretty girls are sleeping with their boyfriends, and they never go without a boyfriend from about the age of 13 on. I suppose they could be “slut shaming” the average looking girls for sleeping with their boyfriends too, but there isn’t much “shame” in pre-marital sex amongst young teens today. As they say, “it just is what it is”.

  35. G.L. Piggy says:

    missmandible:

    When Amanda Marcotte retires in the evening, she does not go to sleep – she assumes the identity of MISSMANDIBLE, an intrepid anti-feminist provocateur and agitator. With the power of her awesome jaw and high testosterone she is able to crush any who might stand in her way.

    I’m sorry, you have it wrong. When Amanda Marcotte goes to sleep, her mandible sets to work editing posts, Tweeting, doing html. I think I saw a Bloggingheads once where Marcotte was paired up with her own jaw. It was crazy.

    I’m thinking of setting up a charity event. A death match between the jaws of Amanda Marcotte and Barry Bonds. The early Vegas line has Marcotte -130.

  36. Aqua Net says:

    This, “You are only “patriarchs” because your wife “agrees” to let you act like one, for the time being.. Which means you are not patriarchs at all. A patriarch is a patriarch because his authority is backed up by law and by social and cultural norms.. Not because his wife “agrees,” as an individual, on a contingent basis, to let him act like one. ”

    … is reflective of an attitude I see in many of the comments here. Anti-freedom. Anti-individualism. No wonder Libertarians are seen as nuts in this country, everyone wants to “control” somebody else here. Americans love their Big Government, Big Religion, Big Society telling everyone what to do.

    I’m remembering John’s song “Imagine”. Imagine if we didn’t have government, religion, society, Patriarchs, Matriarchs, etc trying to exert their control over us every second of every day?

    Imagine if marriage were a PRIVATE contract between individuals, if it even existed at all.

    Imagine a USA based on individual liberty and freedom, and all the consequences of that, voluntarily met by the individuals who freely made decisions based solely on personal will.

    Liberty and freedom. Imagine that!

  37. Ruddyturnstone,

    I agree with part of what you wrote. It’s true that my wife could use current divorce laws against me. So, yes, I am legally vulnerable in my marriage.

    It’s true, too, that I am politically part of a small subculture. But in terms of my marriage I’m not. In my suburb the majority of couples are headed by a male breadwinner and a wife who is either full-time at home or who works part-time. No couples in our local social network have divorced so far. There is still a traditional culture of family life here.

    I don’t think it’s bad advice to say to young men that marriage is a much riskier proposition than it ought to be, that we should work to change the laws and the more damaging aspects of the culture, but that the risk can be brought down by how you choose to marry and by how you choose to husband.

    The alternative you suggest, of abstaining, is not going to work for many men. Even today a large majority of men see marriage and fatherhood as key aspects of life that they want to achieve. To tell these men to stay bachelors is to deny them the chance of the fulfilment they seek.

    There is no second lifetime in which to marry and have children. And although the commitments of being a husband are great, so are the rewards.

  38. greyghost says:

    ruddyturnstone November 20, 2011 at 1:50 am
    That was the most honest day to day description of marriage I have seen in a lomg time. The only reason I am an MRA is to end the laws of misandry. If I had have known fully of this I would not be married now. All of this find a good wife bullshit,game your wife is all bullshit survival techniques for a slave. Thomas Ball burned himself alive when he finally got the message. I became an MRA because I have a son.
    BTW for all, every woman knows what ruddyturnstone just posted. They are taught that from a very young age. This blog and all of this internet chatter and man up talk from SoCons, christians, whiteknigts and manginas liberal and unliberal is survival fear and pure acceptance of the laws of misandry. Remember every woman knows the truth.

  39. Remnant says:

    “Conservatism is about tradition.

    If you don’t uphold tradition, you’re not very conservative.”

    This is now an anachronistic view. Conservatism — from Burke to Buckley — has always been about conserving WHAT IS. But now we are in a world where “what is” is almost invariably progressive, leftist and not traditional. To uphold tradition, therefore, is not conservative: it is reactionary.

    The only people who can argue that they are conservative by upholding tradition are those who were actually raised in that tradition: Amish, orthodox Jews, real Catholics, dyed-in-the-wool Protestants like Baptists, etc. If you are not OF such traditions, and you are trying to claim it for yourself or bring it into your life, you are a reactionary, not a conservative.

    Moldbug really drove this point home in his posting on a theoretical meeting between Carlyle and Whitman in observing the modern world, which is highly recommended reading for any budding reactionary.

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html

  40. Ruddyturnstone, that is interesting.

    The feminists here are trying to remove joint custody but even the current leftist government has left this in place.

    I have, I am sorry to say, actually had some personal experience with the authorities in the area of DV, and they have been very fair in their dealings with me as a husband.

    The feminists have largely failed to institute AA.

    She asks my permission because she wants to, and I cannot remember the last time she disobeyed me on a purchase. With a few exceptions (contraception in our later years), she has followed my wishes. No, I can’t make her obey me legally, but as I said before, even Australia has had no formal legal patriarchy for nearly a century. But Australian women really are pretty nice and relatively sane on the whole.

    The other point is that in my experience, Game works. I never said to my wife, “I am going to Game you, dear, is that OK?” I just started doing it more consciously and found that it works. She hasn’t twigged that I am doing it.

  41. Opus says:

    Much as I am a big fan of this blog, and really appreciate the charts and diagrams, as well as the input of various commenters, I have for the last few weeks been largely puzzled by recent posts. Try as I might I have no idea (intuitively) what a SoCon is, and I am not even sure I really know what a Feminist is either; and it is more than just the fact that I have no idea as to who Bill Bennett and Amanda Marcotte are (two names I keep seeing – never otherwise heard of them). What I am implying is (unless I am being very blind) that this is an entirely American thing, yet America is a large country with a considerable variety in the type of people amongst its citizens; more so, I would suggest that one would find in Europe – there is to take one example, no European equivalent of The Amish or for that matter The Bible-belt, neither are there the descendants of slaves on our shores. I wonder if your commenter and my fellow country-woman Lily would agree with me?

  42. Opus, you have to be an America-watcher like me. Apart from Mark Richardson and Pat Hannigan, there are almost no bloggers from Australia in the Manosphere. I have a blog, but it is just a repository for some ideas on men and women. I think you are in England, which is also not well represented in the Manosphere.

  43. Opus says:

    @David Collard

    Indeed. I have your blog as one of my favourites. The only English Man-o-sphere bloggers that I can immediately think of, are AngloBitch fairly perceptive on the subjest of English repression and pedestalising (and who is I suspect orginally from India?), AngryHarry who is very good – and of course a psychologist – (and funny) but the organisation of the site is a little odd and with no possibility of comment and thus any feedback and Alcuin who is also perceptive (but who is in Asia somewhere I believe). Krauser (PUA) is English – seems to hangout in Camden Market – maybe works a stall – and thus will come across lots of young foreign girls eager to be picked up.

    I should add that my puzzlement should be less than it is having spent a year living and working in the States (DC) and thus have a rather De Toqueville-like view of the country.

  44. Opus, I am surprised that you have my blog on your list, because I rarely update it. The signature quote came from a commentator at Dalrock, an enraged female IIRC. I move around blogs commenting, and I do more when I have a cold, as now. I like Traditional Christianity, Alte’s blog, but it has become a bit more of a Mommy Blog lately. There was some weird civil war and I think a blog called Complementarian Loners hived off. It looks good. There is also Patriactionary. I used to comment at The Spearhead but they got sick of me. I sometimes comment at Roissy and he is often interesting, but there are a lot of bedroom warriors there, telling war stories.

    I had no idea all those blogs are British. The Manosphere goes quiet while the Yanks are in bed. I spent a few months at SUNY at Buffalo years ago, but my interest in America is stronger than that would indicate.

  45. Elspeth says:

    A patriarch is a man who can say “no” to a woman and make it stick.

    (What say you, Elspeth? Agree or disagree? I value your opinion.)

    I agree.

  46. ruddyturnstone says:

    Mark Richardson:

    “I agree with part of what you wrote. It’s true that my wife could use current divorce laws against me. So, yes, I am legally vulnerable in my marriage.”

    Then you are not a patriarch.

    “It’s true, too, that I am politically part of a small subculture. But in terms of my marriage I’m not. In my suburb the majority of couples are headed by a male breadwinner and a wife who is either full-time at home or who works part-time. No couples in our local social network have divorced so far. There is still a traditional culture of family life here.”

    In your “suburb?” Meaning a small town, or part of a small town? How about the metropolitian area that your suburb is a part of? How about your entire state and country? How about the Anglosphere and the West in general? What is the divorce rate there? Your subculture has no organic basis, unlike the Mormons or the Amish or the Orthodox Jews, etc. And your “local social network” even less so. You, and more importantly, your wife, is part of that broader culture, as well as governed by the bad laws you mention. Your suburb and your local social network have no hold on her, no claim of being a discrete, independent community such that it could counteract the greater societal norms, even in merely informal ways, if she decided to go EPL on you.

    “I don’t think it’s bad advice to say to young men that marriage is a much riskier proposition than it ought to be, that we should work to change the laws and the more damaging aspects of the culture, but that the risk can be brought down by how you choose to marry and by how you choose to husband”

    I think the risk is too great, and that any method in choosing or “husbanding” too ineffective to reduce it greatly. I also don’t think it is such a good thing to live your life with a sword hanging over your head, worrying if you have really chosen wisely or are husband correctly. Why enter into a voluntary social relationship that has such enormous downside potential? And why enter into a subordinated status, and hope that your “mistress” will be, and continue to be, “one of the good ones,” and that your actions, your “husbanding,” continues to please her? Just the principle of that is enough to call off the whole deal.

    “The alternative you suggest, of abstaining, is not going to work for many men. Even today a large majority of men see marriage and fatherhood as key aspects of life that they want to achieve. To tell these men to stay bachelors is to deny them the chance of the fulfilment they seek.”

    Many men don’t really understand what Marriage 2.0 is all about. Over and over in the manosphere one reads tales of men who simply had no idea that the laws were so misandrist, that the courts so biased and so on. And that they simply couldn’t imagine that their little cupcake could be so cruel, so ready to use the weapons that the law and society give her. Until reality hit them in the face. Sure, sure, most young men, in the abstract, say they want to marry and be fathers, but I think they believe that something like Marriage 1.0 still exists. If they knew the reality, they might be a lot less eager. And folks going around claiming to be patriarchs aren’t doing them any favors in that regard.

    “There is no second lifetime in which to marry and have children. And although the commitments of being a husband are great, so are the rewards.”

    Of course. This is serious business. It is a real sacrifice that we are talking about, especially when it comes to fatherhood.. But compromising with evil is simply wrong, as well as being a bad deal personally. Each man who marries reinforces Marriage 2.0. He solidifies it. He entrenches it further….”See,” the feminists/trad cons/white knights/manginas say, “So and So got married, such and such percentage of men get married. So how bad can it be?” And no incentive is thereby put on women to change their ways, nor any pressure on the politicians they carry around in the purses like so many nickels and dimes to change the law. Everything can go on just as it is now…men giving women what they want: access to men’s wealth and income, children, and more fodder for the divorce and plunder racket, Why would women and their apologists change the laws and the culture when they are getting exactly what they want?

    I think things are so bad that a routine call for poltical change is not enough. And I can’t change the law by myself. But I can choose how I live, personally. I can refuse to take part in a system of evil. And I can advise other men to do the same. I can’t “tell” them what to do, but I can expose the lies (such as the claim that a patriarchal marriage is possible under the current regime) and I can set an example.

    David:

    “The feminists here are trying to remove joint custody but even the current leftist government has left this in place. I have, I am sorry to say, actually had some personal experience with the authorities in the area of DV, and they have been very fair in their dealings with me as a husband. The feminists have largely failed to institute AA.”

    I’m sorry but I don’t buy it. Everything I have read about Australia in the manosphere (including Mark Richardson, by the way), leads to me to conclude that it is not an outlier when it comes to Marraige 2.0 in particular and feminism in general. Again, the last time you made these claims, another poster strongly disagreed and presented counter evidence, and you didn’t even respond.

    “She asks my permission because she wants to”

    Exactly. Not because you are a “patriarch.”

    “and I cannot remember the last time she disobeyed me on a purchase”

    That’s not the point. The question, if you recall, was can you make your “no” stick. Not does it stick if she “wants” it to.

    “With a few exceptions (contraception in our later years), she has followed my wishes.”

    Again, a patriarch is obeyed. Period. Disobediance is punished. And don’t you think contraception is a pretty big deal?

    “No, I can’t make her obey me legally…”

    Of course not. Nor can you make her obey using any other method either. And the situation is in fact much worse than that implies. The reality is, she hold the cards. She can take you to court whenever she chooses and financially rake you over the coals. Beyond that, all it takes is one phone call from her to the cops, saying that you “abused” her and your life will become a living hell.

    “but as I said before, even Australia has had no formal legal patriarchy for nearly a century. But Australian women really are pretty nice and relatively sane on the whole.”

    Again, sorry but your statements to this effect don’t square with what the other Aussies in the manosphere have written.

    “I never said to my wife, ‘I am going to Game you, dear, is that OK?’”

    Of course not.

    “I just started doing it more consciously and found that it works. She hasn’t twigged that I am doing it.”

    Whether she knows you are doing it or not isn’t the point (although I suspect she isn’t as dense as you think), the point is that she can get sick of your Game. Or your Game can decline. Or someone else with more and better Game might come along. Or maybe you might get tired of Gaming her, and of HAVING to Game her.

    It’s like saying if you wade into a river with crocodiles that there are certain techniques that will reduce the chance of them biting you. I’m sure there are, but it’s much better not to go into the river at all.

    greyghost:

    “That was the most honest day to day description of marriage I have seen in a lomg time.”

    Thank you.

    “The only reason I am an MRA is to end the laws of misandry”

    I agree. That’s what I’m all about. My agenda is not nearly so broad as some of the stuff I read here and in the manosphere in general.

    “If I had have known fully of this I would not be married now.”

    That’s why we have to spread the word.

    “All of this find a good wife bullshit,game your wife is all bullshit survival techniques for a slave.”

    Yep, only a slave has devote so much time and effort into pleasing another person, even if the other person is not conscious of what is being done. Only a slave has to go to such extremes to continue to stay “on her good side,” to continue to entertain or amuse her with his antics.

    ” Thomas Ball burned himself alive when he finally got the message.”

    Yeah, just another guy who had no clue, until it happened to him.

    “I became an MRA because I have a son.”

    For your son, and for all our sons.

    “BTW for all, every woman knows what ruddyturnstone just posted. They are taught that from a very young age. This blog and all of this internet chatter and man up talk from SoCons, christians, whiteknigts and manginas liberal and unliberal is survival fear and pure acceptance of the laws of misandry. Remember every woman knows the truth.”

    Yep, women know the score. And to marry is to accept the laws of misandry.

  47. If I didn’t reply to some previous remarks, it may have been that I lost track of the discussion. I don’t feel nervous of the law in respect of my marriage. None of the men I know do. Maybe you are right, and I should be, but I am not. We don’t have SWAT teams here.

    I don’t care if I can’t force my wife legally to obey me. What would you like me to be able to do? Spank her? (Actually, I do spank her sometimes. She loves it.)

    My interest in the Manosphere is in getting Game tips, amateur sociology and chatting. I try to add my bit by being frank about my own struggles and successes. I also love annoying feminists. And maybe some married men might learn from a bloke with 25 years on the marriage clock.

  48. Johnycomelately says:

    Socons fail at basic logic.

    I wonder how many socons lock their cars or homes? All of them, every single one. Not one of them relies on the ‘good will’ of his fellow man and yet on the other hand they expect a young man to enter into a social contract which ensures he is unable to ‘lock’ his very livelihood let alone his possessions.

    Imagine a used car dealer telling a buyer the car in the yard doesn’t lock but the chance of theft is only 30%, even less if he parks it in a safe neighbourhood, And socons wonder why men eschew marriage.

    .

  49. ruddyturnstone says:

    “I don’t care if I can’t force my wife legally to obey me”

    I don’t care either. It’s just that you are not a patriarch, because you can’t say “no” and “make it stick,” legally or otherwise. And,as mentioned, that just scratches the surface. The fact is that your wife can dump you and take your money at any time, and the law and society will back her up.

    “What would you like me to be able to do? Spank her? (Actually, I do spank her sometimes. She loves it.)”

    Right. As I said, consentually role playing. That’s not what being a patriarch means. You can spank her cuz she likes it. Just like she (“usually”) obeys you–cuz she likes it. If she didn’t like, it would be domestic violence and abuse.

    “I didn’t reply to some previous remarks, it may have been that I lost track of the discussion. I don’t feel nervous of the law in respect of my marriage. None of the men I know do. Maybe you are right, and I should be, but I am not. We don’t have SWAT teams here.”

    Whatevs. Plenty of Aussie guys say differently And SWAT teams are only a small part of it.

  50. Pingback: HEY BOYS AND GIRLS, IT’S TIME TO PLAY “TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE OR FEMINIST?”

  51. Matthew Peak says:

    Trad-Con: Men are responsible for women’s well-being and betterment.
    Feminist: Men are guilty of women’s lack of well-being and betterment.

    In today’s world, men should have nothing to do with women’s well-being and betterment as law and social liberation take care of women. Men are free to be responsible for their own well-being and betterment without any demands placed on them by women.

  52. Escoffier says:

    So what exactly is the bill of particulars against SoCons? So far I have:

    1) They failed to anticipate or stop the feminist/sexual revolution.

    2) They complain about men a lot but have nothing to say about the bad behavior of women.

    3) They collude with feminists on making bad law, particularly in the area of forced child support.

  53. zed says:

    Trad-Con: Men are responsible for women’s well-being and betterment.
    Feminist: Men are guilty of women’s lack of well-being and betterment.

    Best summary I’ve ever seen of why Trad-cons and feminists are two sides of the same coin – as in –
    “heads, she wins, tails, he loses.”

    “What a strange game! The only winning move is not to play.”

  54. Feminist Hater says:

    Well Escoffier, that’s a start. I’ll add a bit.

    1) They failed to anticipate or chose to outright ignore the consequences of the feminist/sexual revolution and forgave women for their part but expect men to “man up” and keep the man’s part of the “social contract”.

    2) They complain and tell men, who are not Alphas, to “man up” and marry sexually promiscuous women with children by other men, and work their fingers to the bone and bodies and minds to death to support a screwed up society that rewards women for single mother hood, being slutty and only career minded whilst the same women only seeing men as an accessory to be disposed of when they are no longer happy, by taking them to divorce court and/or using trumped up charges to gain sole custody of their children.

    3) They collude with feminists by pushing through Anti-Male laws, particularly in the Social Welfare, Divorce Proceedings, Domestic Violence and the Maintenance of Ex-spouses and Children. You could include Affirmative Action and other such laws too, if you want to. Since women now make up more entrants to universities and make up less of the unemployment figures, surely it is now time to END affirmative action against men? Try tell a women that and watch her spin any number of reasons why women need Affirmative Action else men would exploit them and put them back in the kitchen.

    With regards to your comment, it would seem that SoCons are the liberal feminists of 20 years ago. So, in essence, Liberal Feminists today would be the SoCons of tomorrow, twenty years from now.

  55. Dalrock says:

    @missmandable

    And to be honest, a successful movement might have to cut moral corners a few times. Christianity does not allow this.

    Christians have been all too willing to cut moral corners. More accurately, they have been willing to cut out the heart of sexual morality (marriage) while keeping only the corners.

  56. zed says:

    So what exactly is the bill of particulars against SoCons?

    1) Desertion in the face of fire on all except a few select social issues – gay marriage and abortion being the notable exceptions. Despite hundreds of articles and studies debunking feminist lies like “1 in 4″ or “77 cents” or “barefoot and pregnant” that we still hear these on a daily basis. Those concepts have become so deeply rooted that it only takes 2 or 3 words to invoke an entire body of lies.

    2) Being AWOL (Absent Without Leave) on all the fundamental issues of Father’s Rights. While at the same time they demand that men “man up”, they have given absolutely no support to enforcement of visitation rights for fathers, done absolutely nothing about the diversion of billions of dollars of tax money to fund swat teams to forcibly remove fathers from their homes if the wifey utters the magic words “I feel unsafe.” Google Fathers for Justice (F4J) to see how a small group of disenfranchised fathers used quirky concepts to bring the corruption of the Family Courts to public attention.

    In this respect they remind me of the biblical story of Moses when he angers the Pharaoh who then decrees that the Jews must continue to produce the same number of bricks per day, but that they would no longer be provided the straw to do so and must gather it from the fields at night. The past 40 years have been one legal restraint on or sabotage against men in to make it more difficult for them to actually fulfill the father’s role, but the demands have not gone down or only escalated.

    3) Progressive abrogation of all first 10 amendments of the US constitution – which puts them on the list of “enemies, foreign and domestic.”

    4) Direct, extensive, and concerted action to violate the 13th amendment to the US Constitution – (Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction) via such vehicles of the Bradley Amendment.

    5) Years of cover ups, denying, and excusing female evil, which makes them in a technical sense “accessories after the fact.”

    6) Attempts to Obstruct justice in cases where men have taken measures to protect themselves from women’s lies, when the very mechanism men used to expose women’s lies have come under attack to make them illegal – e.g. – the taping of the sexual encounter between Danmell Ndonye and 4 young men in the bathroom of a dormitory at Hofstra University which disproved her accusations of rape and saved the 4 young men from spending years in prison.

    7) Assent by silence to the shredding of all due process by rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong in an attempt to lynch a bunch of young affluent white boys for a claim of rape which never happened. The gang of 88 was ready to lynch them or castrate them, but a real investigation (instead of just rubber stamping the accusation) turned up illegalities from evidence tampering to perjury. How much time did rogue prosecutor Nifong spend in jail? One day. I’m sure that most socons would say “let the punishment fit the crime.” Apparently, violating every bit of legal ethics that exist just to be able to hang some white boys and make political points with his black electorate isn’t much of a crime in socon thinking – about one day in jails worth.

    That’s off the top of my head.

    Oh, and BTW, are you absolutely convinced that only 2% of rape claims are false and that we really need to lock up more men based on nothing but the word of women and the “preponderance of evidence”?

  57. The Continental Op says:

    missmandible says: “Yeah, I’m a dude.”

    Queer.

  58. Purple Tortoise says:

    Dalrock,

    I think you and the other commenters have been missing the key factor driving “social conservatism” over the past several decades: anti-abortion. When this is understood, nearly everything falls into place.

    Consider Sarah Palin. How can it possibly be the case that a woman who has left hearth and home to become a governor is considered a banner-carrier for traditional values? Aside from gun rights, it’s because she is against abortion. One might think that her teenage daughter giving birth out-of-wedlock would disqualify Sarah Palin as a promoter of socially conservative values (e.g., why wasn’t she at home caring for her children?), but instead it strengthens Palin’s credentials because Bristol kept the baby.

    Social conservatives won’t engage in slut shaming out of fear that it will drive women to have more abortions. Instead they set up non-judgmental crisis pregnancy centers. Single mothers are regarded as heros because they didn’t kill their babies. Men are urged to marry single mothers to provide fathers for the kids. Do it for the children!

    I am strongly against abortion and think crisis pregnancy centers can be good at the individual level, but we have to recognize that being non-judgmental about out-of-wedlock births has been a disastrous social policy. If it were in my power to make abortion illegal, I would, but in the absence of that I am tired of being extorted by the threat that women will kill their kids if they don’t get shame-free handouts from society. Governmental aid to single mothers may alleviate abortion rates and impoverished children the short-term, but it is clearly is increasing them in the long-term. At least with private charity, one can address moral failure and make a distinction between “deserving” and “non-deserving”.

    Social conservatism won’t become effective until it adopts a broader approach than short-term minimization of abortion at all costs.

  59. felsenburgh says:

    That was an entertaining thread.

    Mangan, Bardamu, G. L. Piggy, Hannagan, with references to George Grant, Spengler’s Universal Law of Gender Parity and Chuck Norris – and, naturally, Whiskey’s theory on white, White, WHITE women. The only thing missing was GBFM.

    I can wait.

  60. Celeste says:

    Purple Tortoise,

    I wholly agree. When I listen to Christian radio news and they are reporting on social issues, it seems it’s at least half about abortion.

    But here’s the dilemma I suspect they are facing: If one really believes that abortion is equivalent to the genocide of millions, how are they supposed to focus on anything else?

  61. Legion says:

    Escoffier says:
    November 20, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Hey little buddy. How are you doing. We missed you on the last thread.

  62. Dalrock says:

    Purple Tortoise

    Dalrock,

    I think you and the other commenters have been missing the key factor driving “social conservatism” over the past several decades: anti-abortion. When this is understood, nearly everything falls into place.

    You make a strong case for this in your full comment. I think the question though is have Social Conservatives abandoned sexual morality because they have latched solely onto abortion, or have they latched solely onto abortion (and gay marriage) because they are terrified of standing up for sexual morality? For some the answer is likely the former, but my gut tells me that for the vast majority it is the other way around.

    This issue also highlights another weakness in the outrage Social Conservatives are expressing when criticized for abandoning sexual morality and any other practical opposition to feminism (aside from abortion and gay marriage). The claim is what could they possibly do, given the debauchery of the culture? They claim to secretly deeply care about sexual morality and traditional roles of men and women, but they would instantly be annihilated if they stood up for their own deeply held values. Abortion and homosexuality prove the lie here. When Trad Cons really care about something, they don’t let it go.

  63. TFH says:

    Oh, and BTW, are you absolutely convinced that only 2% of rape claims are false and that we really need to lock up more men based on nothing but the word of women and the “preponderance of evidence”?

    Actually, about 40% of rape accusations are false :

    http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php

  64. TFH says:

    Oh, and BTW, are you absolutely convinced that only 2% of rape claims are false

    Who actually claimed this?

  65. TFH says:

    GL Piggy,

    It is worse than that. They can be shown all sorts of evidence of feminist evil, and all types of evidence of rigged laws against men, etc. and forget it about two seconds later, as if they never saw it.

    Sometimes, a group can be judged by what they avoid more than what they do, and it is blindingly obvious that many SoCons live a live than can be termed as ‘path of least shaming language’. They will support any and all leftism and tyranny as long as it is packaged as ‘chivalry’, the opposition of which would invite the dreaded shaming language.

  66. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    So what exactly is the bill of particulars against SoCons? So far I have:

    1) They failed to anticipate or stop the feminist/sexual revolution.

    2) They complain about men a lot but have nothing to say about the bad behavior of women.

    3) They collude with feminists on making bad law, particularly in the area of forced child support.

    I’m not blaming today’s Trad Cons for #1, but for continuing a tradition which buries the failure under the rug. Trad Cons are in deep denial. They swear loudly they are against feminism, but when you get into the details they always seem to get it wrong. They are very much like the androids in Blade Runner / Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. They really think they are the real deal. Only when you test them does the truth come out. This doesn’t make them any different than the average person in our society, except they are so adamant about their anti feminist bona fides. They have soaked up feminism just like everyone else, but they desperately think they are different. Because of this, they get in the way of any real discussion. They are just like Gilligan when it comes to getting off the island. They aren’t sabotaging the conversation on purpose, they are just hopelessly foolish.

    Not all Trad Cons are lost causes. I come from a very similar place as others have noted. But the denial among Trad Cons as a whole is downright pathological. They just happen to toe the feminist line on almost any issue you can bring up, but boy are they antifeminist. This also isn’t an issue of simple intellectual disagreement, because Trad Cons will swear they agree with everything you say, right up until the topic of doing anything which would actually have any real impact. They are all talk, but they don’t even know it.

    This is what I’m trying to burn through. It is the same issue as with Christians and sexual morality. The vast majority of Christians think they are hardline on marriage. Yet look at what the Sherwood Baptist Church came up with when they wanted to make a Christian morality tale on marriage (Fireproof). They are so steeped in feminist thought and fear of offending women that they unwittingly ended up creating divorce porn for women and a justification of serial polyandry, not a movie about Christian marriage. Yet no one else noticed, because the disease is everywhere. Sheila Gregoire had no idea she wasn’t standing up for Christian marriage when she said that women can divorce and remarry for as little as her husband viewing pornography or something as undefined as “emotional abuse”. She really thought she was toeing the biblical line. The same thing is true for Glenn Stanton of Focus On The Family. His group is at the intersection of Trad Cons and Christianity. In the US I think you will agree that Focus On The Family are considered the ultimate Trad Cons. They are the benchmark for pushing traditional family values. Yet a prominent member of the organization is out bragging about a 38% divorce rate for the most devout Christians, and calling unwed mothers heroes while blaming men for being kicked out of their children’s lives. Just like the androids, he really believes he is the real deal. He would pass a lie detector test if you asked him if he supported traditional family values. Not only that, but 95% of the population believes that this is what FOTF supports as well.

  67. But this is the problem. Sarah Palin is being spoken about here as a tradcon. Why? Because she is anti-abortion. But she has announced herself openly as a feminist over and over. She has come in for much criticism on this score and others at real tradcon sites like VFR, Thinking Housewife etc.

  68. Dalrock says:

    @Mark Richardson

    FYI, I have a response to you in the other thread.

  69. Escoffier says:

    The points about SoCon-Feminist collusion on family law, child support, etc. are very strong and I didn’t really know much about that until clicking through and reading the various links provided here and elsewhere. I suspect that the SoCon support for this is, as you say, a misguided attempt to do something “for the children” without understanding the unintended consequences.

  70. Celeste says:

    Because when us lay folks turn on the radio and hear political commentators who self-identify as “social conservatives” praising the social stances of folks like Palin, over and over, she becomes thus labeled.

  71. Escoffier says:

    Purple Tortoise, I would go farther. Part of the difficulties I have with discussing “SoCons” in the context of the ’60s is that back then there were no SoCons. They are a reactionary group in the precise sense, they arose in reaction to events, and the #1 event that caused the rise of the SoCons was Roe v. Wade. So, they have always been about abortion first and foremost.

    One major exception would be Phyllis Schlafly who, whatever else you can say about her, she certainly is not in league with the feminists. She single-handedly defeated the ERA among other things.

  72. PT Barnum says:

    It’s important to realize that these creatures have never actually been in a real argument where anyone attempts to prove their actual claims wrong. Just do that and the creature will shut up.

    The Severn was rambling about how “true” Conservatives aren’t really like that and I went to the apparently unheard effort of looking up his “true Scotsman” Tom Tancredo. Well, Tom hates the porn, thinks homosexual marriage is a danger to “real marriage”… and in a surprising turn of events has nothing else to say on marriage! Are you shocked? I am shocked!….. . He also worries about the immorality of the country, in vague terms, and thinks abstinence for 12 years before marriage is a viable answer to pre-martial sex. Oh, and he wants to Bomb Iran. And he uses the phrase “society has an interest”. Never a good sign.

    Well, Tom has certainly dispelled my worries about Conservatives not trying to fix marriage!

    Did you know he supports a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw homo-sexual marriage?

    I bet if we get that passed, declining hetero-sexual marriage rates will begin rising again! Cause those girls are just waiting for that how icky homo-sexual thing to be taken care of before they marry! I’m sure it’s the Number 1 reason for delaying marriages!

  73. Celeste says:

    And:

    Why does it matter who calls themselves what? The problem isn’t with the words “social conservative.” The broader point here is that the political factions which claim to be pro-family and pro-traditional marriage are not delivering.

  74. Escoffier says:

    Dalrock:

    Here’s the question I have. I have no idea what the answer is.

    There are many reasons/factors for why we are where we are. One of the most important, if not THE most important, is “feminism 1.0″, i.e., encourage females to get educated and pursue careers in the same way that men do. Women could of course do this before the mid-’60s but it was understood by society that she would be giving something up, the most important thing. Women who pursued careers (apart from traditional female roles such as teaching, and even that many women dropped out of altogether once they had children) were considered at best sort of harmelessly odd, fine, do what you want lady, but we know that family life is superior and more important.

    That’s changed. Now it’s “You MUST do this for own sake, not to do it is to not realize your potential.” And that change is a direct cause of much of what you diagnose.

    The way the UMC has “solved” this problem is to send girls to college, let them launch their careers–whether in soggy girly stuff like PR or crunchy stuff like business and law–and then they marry late (~30), have kids a few years later and drop out of working at least until the kids are grown. This answers a couple of needs, not least the need for two incomes to accumulate assets so that the couple can eventually buy into a UMC school district. But the real importance of this solution is to her psyche. Getting the education and career are a way of telegraphing “I am a complete person, not some drone like June Cleaver. I am just as smart and capable as any man. In my altruistic concern for my children, I choose not to use my talent in the marketplace but to devote myself to them.” In other words, she needs that education and early career to mark her as better than a mere housewife, even though she will eventually choose to become a housewife. (It’s actually very high status in these places to stay home with your kids–IF you once had a career–and subtly frowned upon for mothers to work. A woman who never had a career is low status in the blue state UMC.)

    So, 1) do you think the solution to the problems you describe requires going back or can reform be accomplished with the basic tenets of feminism 1.0 still intact? And, 2) if you think going back is essential, how would you handicap the odds?

  75. zed says:

    Part of the difficulties I have with discussing “SoCons” in the context of the ’60s is that back then there were no SoCons.

    Oh yes, there were. It is a relative term. In th context of the 1960s, Lester Maddox was a SoCon. George Wallace was a SoCon. Robert McNamara was a SoCon. Barry Goldwater was the ultimate SoCon – so much so that his nickname was “Mr, Conservative.”

    The problem today for SoCons and their image is that they are like the cartoon character Yosemite Sam holding onto a rope with his heels dug in but nonetheless being polled along. By defending the current status quo – whatever that is – the SoCons end up defending the position that they adamantly opposed 20 years ago, but the culture got drug into. In 20 more years they will be defending the position that they adamantly oppose today.

    [D: Great analogy with Yosemite Sam. I made a similar analogy of a sea anchor in my post on the Penny Nance piece.]

  76. Escoffier says:

    “Robert McNamara”?!? In what sense? I don’t recall him ever uttering a word about social policy.

    Goldwater was a true libertarian who talked little about all the issues that we consider “social” today. Because, back then, to be “on the right” on social issues was mainstream. Goldwater eventually came out for gay marriage and gays in the military on libertarian grounds.

  77. Dalrock says:

    Excellent question Escoffier. I don’t have time to give a worthy reply now but will do so later.

  78. TFH says:

    By defending the current status quo – whatever that is – the SoCons end up defending the position that they adamantly opposed 20 years ago, but the culture got drug into. In 20 more years they will be defending the position that they adamantly oppose today.

    That is right. SoCons are just amoral viscosity agents…. No constants.

    This means SoCons 20 years from now will be pro-PUA. Sunday Morning Nightclub, baby!

    Make that 10 years from now, since the rate of change accelerates, causing deltas to compress in time.

  79. TFH says:

    Escoffier,

    Women could of course do this before the mid-’60s but it was understood by society that she would be giving something up, the most important thing.

    Good point, but remember that the only thing that changed is that massive and pervasive government intervention creates the temporary illusion that she has not given these things up, even though she actually has.

    It is just like credit cards mean the bill is due later rather than at the time of purchase. Some women actually think that credit cards mean they don’t have to pay later. The same is true here.

  80. zed says:

    Goldwater was a true libertarian who talked little about all the issues that we consider “social” today.

    That is the problem with terms and times, Escoffier – Goldwater talked a great deal about the issues which were considered “social” at the time he was active in public policy. His position, interpreted a bit by my own editorializing, was to reverse the New Deal line of thinking and get government as much as possible out of people’s private lives. That was actually the “conservative” line of thinking at that time. Now it is called Libertarian. Instead, his defeat paved the way for the passage of Johnson’s “Great Society” programs which formed the government’s foundation for destruction of the family.

    There are no real “conservatives” out there today. The only real argument is over which area of people’s personal lives the government most needs to intrude into. Calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman is an idea which would make most conservatives spin in their graves.

    Instead of talking about conservative anything, using the terms “left wing fascism” versus “right wing fascism” would be more appropriate.

    At least maybe we could get the trains to run on time. ;)

  81. Desiderius says:

    Escoffier,

    “Here’s the question I have. I have no idea what the answer is.

    So, 1) do you think the solution to the problems you describe requires going back or can reform be accomplished with the basic tenets of feminism 1.0 still intact? And, 2) if you think going back is essential, how would you handicap the odds?”

    Nailing it. It may well be as simple as creating a norm where women do family first, then career, with the expectation of the latter understood at the outset.

    The problem with going back on anything (and this gets to a problem with your game for pastors post, Dal, aside from your untenable take on biblical interpretation,) and making it understood that one is so doing, is that it violates America’s true civil religion – our belief in Progress.

    Gender roles naturally come in cycles throughout American history (see Strauss and Howe’s Generations that predicted a lot of this 20 years ago) so things are naturally headed in your direction. To help it along though, it may need to be couched in terms of moving forward instead of going back.

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier, social conservative and traditional conservative groups routinely put hundreds of thousands of people – anywhere from 100,000 to 800,000 – on the national Mall in Washington, DC in bad weather (January) to protest the Roe v. Wade court decision. That tells me that there is plenty of organization for things they care about. Fathers for Justice engaged in a protest in DC a year or so back. Guess how many SoCons/TradCons were there, to rally for fathers? How many he-manly patriarchs showed up? How many mothers came to support men unjustly punished for being fathers?

    Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

    The only conclusion is the obvious one: SoCons/TradCons do not care about fathers. They are willing to talk about fathers, but they are not willing do do anything for fathers, not even show up someplace for an hour and hold a sign. Not even that.

    A quarter of a million SoCon/TradCons will protest against abortion, not one will show up to support fathers. That’s how it is. Now, you go ahead and dump your usual load of snark and hogwash. But you can’t change the facts, no matter how snide and passive-aggressive you are.

  83. Escoffier says:

    I think SoCons could be convinced to care about fathers in more or less the same terms you care about them here. They just have not heard the arguments. They truly “know not what they do.”

  84. Escoffier says:

    Desiderius, America’s “true civil religion” is natural right, as in, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Progressivism is a late entrant and German import through academia that became policy (nationally) under TR and Woodrow Wilson. Plus early on in the state governments of California and Wisconsin. It may have BECOME our civil religion but it’s an alien invader.

  85. PT Barnum says:

    GL Piggy said:

    I think that socons do pedestalize the notion of virginal women, but that’s just it, in their proscription for young men to “Man up” they are assuming that women are womaning up too.

    So they actually believe women are womening up? Well, if they are that stupid, then I can certainly see why the country is falling apart.

    Oh wait, you were just lying again. Sorry. My bad.

  86. TFH says:

    I think SoCons could be convinced to care about fathers in more or less the same terms you care about them here. They just have not heard the arguments. They truly “know not what they do.”

    No, Escoffier,

    They have been told the arguments hundreds of times. They forget them in a second as the biggest fear a SoCon has is incurring the disapproval of a woman (no matter how unwarranted).

    You are still claiming that SoCons can evaluate the facts in a detached, neutral manner. As they have proven countless times, they cannot.

    Just recently, Bill Bennett wrote his groveling screed. Tons of people, even beyond this sphere, slammed him and corrected his cognitive dissonance. In response, he doubled down, and ignored all the facts in a ‘la la la la I can’t hear you’ manner.

    As Dalrock says, the denial and cognitive dissonance of SoCons is pathological. It is far too late to claim SoCons ‘have not heard the facts’.

    Our main goal here is to transfer the costs of feminism/misandry onto women and SoCons.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    I think SoCons could be convinced to care about fathers in more or less the same terms you care about them here.

    My experience with them online tells me exactly the opposite.

    They just have not heard the arguments.

    It is difficult for someone who refuses to listen, who won’t stop shrieking/bellowing, to hear anything. Least of all arguments from people they consider “evil” / “peter pan” / whiners who just won’t “man up” when told to do so. In short, they don’t hear the arguments because they do not want to hear them.

    They truly “know not what they do.”

    20 years ago I would have believed you. 10 years ago I might have believed you.

    It is not easy for me to believe you, now. TradCons/SoCons basically regard men as beasts of burden, walking ATM’s and sperm vending machines. Just like feminists. Are you going to argue that feminists also don’t know what they have been doing?

  88. Escoffier says:

    Well, I don’t know how long these arguments have been being made but I know, or believe, that they are well hidden from the mainstream.

    Any individual SoCon may be unreachable, especially one who has made his reputation on making certain types of arguments. But yoy’re not really trying to convert Bennett. You’re trying to reach Bennett’s followers and seperate them from him. I may be naive but I think that is possible.

  89. Purple Tortoise says:

    Dalrock,

    You ask why social conservatives have abandoned issues of sexual morality aside from abortion and gay marriage? Some haven’t, but for many of the rest it is because they themselves are morally compromised.

    Consider the issue of women having careers. I think the evidence is piling up that this is: 1) promoting sexual promiscuity because marriage is long delayed as a woman builds her career, 2) reducing marriage rates because “successful” career women can’t easily “marry up”, 3) undermining the family because men have more difficulty filling the traditional “provider” role due to competition with women for jobs, 4) detrimental to child development as kids spend a large part of their lives in daycare, 5) diminishing social cohesion as women do less volunteer work in church and community because they are working full-time, and 6) leading to more abortions as women kill their babies so as not to impede their progress in school or a career. But social conservatives can’t speak out about this because too many of the leading women in the movement and their supporters have careers. Even if they didn’t speak to the wider culture, it would be a start for social conservatives to comprehensively live out traditional values in their own lives. But this is would mean sacrifice — it’s easier to instead condemn abortion.

    Consider the issue of no-fault divorce. While it greatly harms men in the aggregate, men at the apex benefit from it. There are many women hypergamously attracted to these top dogs, and no-fault divorce makes it easier to replace wives. Yes, they may have to give up more money than they would wish, but they still have enough left over to live well, and they have the resources and connections to ensure they never get screwed over like a regular guy. Restricting divorce would mean sacrifice for those with the greatest influence over the system — it’s easier to instead condemn gay marriage.

  90. zed says:

    Well, let’s start with you, Escoffier. Are you converted? You came in here a few days ago guns blazing. Sorry, but it was typical SoCon bullshit. You absolutely blew up and dominated one thread as a whole bunch of people argued against your bigoted preconceptions.

    So, now you have had the facts shoved in your face over and over.. Are you converted?

    Do SoCons live in the same world that I do? I don’t have any special direct line to “the truth.” Every fact that has been thrown in your face has been as available to every SoCon out there as it has been to us MRAs.

    Are SoCons all brain-dead ostriches who keep their heads buried in the MSM and only think what they are told to think?

    Trust me, I don’t give anyone points for being stupid over being malicious.

    Let me give you an example of what real socially conservative, and not to mention socially CONSTRUCTIVE, actions looked like barely 40 years ago.

    Back in the early 1970s I had a roommate get fired from his job for doing something incredibly stupid at work. His boss called him in and told him – “If you had been married and had a wife and kids to provide for, we would have given you another chance. But, you don’t, so hit the road, Jack!”

    First of all, this illustrates the privilege of married men at that time. Businesses were very clear on the fact that his paycheck did not belong to him, but was used for the socially constructive purpose of supporting a family – you know, all those “family values” that the SoCons masturbate themselves and each other over believing in.

    If he had been married, and was “manning up”, then they would not have fired his mouthy ass in order to make sure that Lily Ledbetter’s paycheck was fair enough.

    Now, fast forward 35 years, to the mancession, and damn straight he would be out on the streets married or not. And, since there just weren’t any jobs to be had, cupcake would cut her losses and divorce him. But, since his child support would be based on what he had made at the height of his career, it would be “imputed” to him as the income he could make if he “manned up” and thus his child support would be based on that.

    Instantly he would be in arrears, and his driver’s license would be suspended so he could not even look for another job, much less get to it if he was lucky enough to get one. The Bradley Amendment would assure that he would never pay his way out of peonage for the rest of his life.

    Six months down the line some Mike Nifonger of a prosecutor decides to Nifong him and put his face on a pizza box as a “Deadbeat Dad – public enemy #1.”

    And, I will bet you that at least 80% of the brain dead assholes who have no idea that this is going on can tell us who won at least 75% of the Superbowls and World Series between 1991 and 2011.

    Do you think that any of them who owned a business or was in a position to hire any of these guys would give them a job so that they could pay their child support?

    Didn’t think so.

  91. zed says:

    @ Purple Tortoise –

    Home run on all counts!!

    But social conservatives can’t speak out about this because too many of the leading women in the movement and their supporters have careers. Even if they didn’t speak to the wider culture, it would be a start for social conservatives to comprehensively live out traditional values in their own lives. But this is would mean sacrifice — it’s easier to instead condemn abortion.

    “Do as we say, not as we do.”

    Hypocrisy, thy name is SoCon.

    Consider the issue of no-fault divorce. While it greatly harms men in the aggregate, men at the apex benefit from it. There are many women hypergamously attracted to these top dogs, and no-fault divorce makes it easier to replace wives. Yes, they may have to give up more money than they would wish, but they still have enough left over to live well, and they have the resources and connections to ensure they never get screwed over like a regular guy. Restricting divorce would mean sacrifice for those with the greatest influence over the system — it’s easier to instead condemn gay marriage.

    Exhibit A – Newt Gingrich, on his 3rd wife and counting – and one of the previous ones he divorced while she was in a hospital bed dying of cancer.

    What say you, SoCons, about old Newt? Ready to forgive and forget and elect him president?

  92. Escoffier says:

    Well, let’s see, zed, converted to what?

    Am I converted to believing that natural right is bullshit? No.

    Am I converted to believing that Roissy and Roosh are heroes? No.

    Am I converted to believing that male promiscuity is somehow a force for good? No.

    On the other hand, have I learned something? Yes. I did not know until I read this and other sites how bad family law is (both as written and as practiced) so these sites did a real service for me and I am grateful. I actually knew this stuff (because I had done my reading) before I started posting and said nothing to the contrary, though that did not stop you and others from assuming that I was all in favor of divorce rape.

    If you are trying to build an echo chamber that hounds out all potential allies, you are doing a great job. This is not to say that I am necessarily a valuable ally. It is however to say that I and a lot of people I know who are like me are amenable to (parts of) your message and that if you want to exert influence you need more, not less, people to listen to you and to come to agree with you. Practicing “Ready, Fire, Aim” at every newcomer who at first glance deviates 1% from your script is not the best way to accomplish that.

    Oh, and being stupid or ignorant is definitely morally superior to being malicious.

  93. Desiderius says:

    Escoffier,

    “Desiderius, America’s ‘true civil religion’ is natural right, as in, ‘the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’ and ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident.’”

    Which is it, nature or self (i.e. tautological)? Those are two very different bases, but neither one has much currency currently. That is of course subject to change, but the case for it needs to be remade, not merely assumed. Likewise, I’m as much of a fan of the Big Ox as anyone, but the founders weren’t exactly up on their Aquinas, nor did their countrymen have much enthusiasm for his Pope. Deism is thin gruel indeed next to the Summa, and the common man’s faith was awakened by the conviction of his sin, not the finely wrought arguments of the Enlightened .

    Our own Stubborn Thomas (Clarence) has made his own brave headway, but the going is awfully rough. I can’t imagine it would be so were he already in consonance with out true civil religion.

    “Progressivism is a late entrant and German import through academia that became policy (nationally) under TR and Woodrow Wilson. Plus early on in the state governments of California and Wisconsin. It may have BECOME our civil religion but it’s an alien invader.”

    Of course, but that Hegelian Progressivism is but a cheap knockoff of the Poor Richard’s Up By Your Bootstraps dedication to Progress that preceded it and still animates us as a people, to the extent we’re still kicking.

    TFH, the SoCons aren’t primarily worried about their women shaming them, it’s what that shaming represents to them – falling behind the times.

  94. Desiderius says:

    I don’t know why it is assumed that the solutions will come through conservatives. Could anyone conceive of an arrangement more patently offensive to the sensibilities of liberals than the current SMP, were the reality to get past the fake Left media?

  95. Desiderius says:

    “What say you, SoCons, about old Newt? Ready to forgive and forget and elect him president?”

    I’m not a SoCon, but don’t believe everything you read:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/aspects-of-gingrich-divorce-story-distorted/2011/11/17/gIQA8iY4YN_story.html

  96. Desiderius says:

    Escoffier,

    They pick on SoCons for the same reason their (SoCons’) wives do:

    SoCons are absolute pussies who have no idea how to defend themselves. Same reason they’ve been getting trounced in the culture and government the past 40 years.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t consider you a SoCon. Just because one opposes the fake Left, that doesn’t put one on the Right, especially because that’s where the fake Left wants you.

  97. zed says:

    If you are trying to build an echo chamber that hounds out all potential allies, you are doing a great job. This is not to say that I am necessarily a valuable ally.

    And therein lies your fatal flaw and mistake, Escoffier. It is you who need allies, not I. I am not the one wondering why fewer and fewer people support my vision every year.

    I have obeyed every last law you have passed to burn men – before I ran afoul of your law enforcement. I have gotten away scot free from your every effort to enslave me.

    Perhaps you can pass a law requiring me to marry one of those whores of daughters you are raising and will eventually have an excuse to put me in one of your jails – if you can pay enough taxes to keep them open that long.

  98. zed says:

    I’m not a SoCon, but don’t believe everything you read:

    So, you give me something else to read. Am I supposed to believe it? :)

    It does soften the spin on the story, but doesn’t significantly change any of the details. They did discuss their divorce while the wife was in the hospital for treatment of cancer.

    You said you aren’t a SoCon, Desiderius, but I am a bit confused. In the past few days there has been a lot of discussion here from the religious standpoint of whether divorce is ever justified and whether a divorced person is allowed to remarry. Setting aside the particular circumstances of Newt’s first divorce – certainly not due to addiction, adultery, or other gross misbehavior on his wife’s part – where does having gone through yet another divorce and remarriage position him morally?

  99. davver says:

    “I went to an Ivy League University and graduated with honors. I am a fairly successful federal employee.”

    He’s at the top of the food chain, so he estimates his chances of failure to be lower then for the average man. The rest of his POV flows from that.

    “We will soon have four kids so far and she is just thirty.”

    So he married her in her early to mid 20s at the latest. He got her before the carousel during the best years of her life.

    “If you get divorced, you won’t die. You’ll just get back in the saddle like a real man. ”

    Well, he’s a highly compensated government employee, likely from a well off family. He won’t die. Proles from regular families with regular IQs risk financial ruin, not being able to see their kids, and possibly jail if they are laid off and can’t pay child support.

    The stuff about Japan is bizarre. The most misogynistic societies are the Middle Easter, Latino, and African ones, and they are gangbusters fertility. If we restrict it to first world countries the feminist embracing European countries are all below replacement. I’m not seeing any kind of correlation to his argument here. I’ve lived there and he doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about.

    “It is not womanly for a woman to be barren. Likewise, it is not manly for a man to be childless.”

    Its in our nature to get laid. In a world without birth control and abortion we wouldn’t have a baby shortage, but birth control allows us to fool our programming. Men are still doing “manly” things, its just not having the result nature designed.

  100. TFH says:

    Escoffier still appears to be of the belief that harming 10 men is not as bad as harming 1 woman.

    They won’t admit it, but it is evident from what SoCons don’t say (and what points they dodge).

  101. Chris says:

    I think there is a problem here of categories. But then, I’m not American, so bear with me. The social conservatives are — as far as I can see — republicans and their camp followers.

    The religious geeks who are subverting the place (credit Alte with the term, she invented it a couple of days ago) are not social conservatives. They are more like the survivalists: they are trying to live away from the current laws and follow instead what used to be considered the law of God.

    This is something like Canon Law, as interpreted by Catholics anywhere but the US. But most of these people are fully aware that the hierarchy of churches in the US has the spine of an invertebrate. So they are using the intertubes to network.

    A fair number of the commentators in that little part of cyberspace are not from the US, but from other parts of the Anglosphere, where the problems are much more obvious because most people don’t pretend to be Christian.

    And I was quite serious at the beginning. The correction will come when people decide that the law as gone far enough and disobey it. A few church elders descending on children;s welfare en masse and rescuing a child taken because they were smacked from a foster home, then going to jail…

    Churches putting up a sign saying the last divorce was two years ago…

    And churches sacking the chior because there are six gay couple, and two straight couples living together…. or the treasurer because he has funnelled money into a campaign fund (or his own pockets)…

    When preachers start preaching on hell and shame…

    Then we will see revival, and then we will see change. Until then, enjoy the decline if you will, but I all I see is the suckage.

  102. gabriel says:

    Bonald is angry about yours and CL latest posts:

    In fact, I’ll go further: without the Catholic Church and the Protestants who get called “puritan” or “fundamentalist”, there would be no Right, no opposition to feminism, anywhere in the West. Might I suggest to the rear-line generals of the MRM that some of the reasons for the things we do is that we’re the ones who actually have to worry about feminist counterattacks and about swaying the public? It’s all well and good for the MRM to say that SoCons emphasize male fault more than female fault. It’s we Catholics who are getting attacked as “misogynist” for our opposition to abortion, divorce, and promiscuity.

    Somebody with much knowledge than me can point to how the said churches officially, nominally fight against feminism?

  103. Ray Manta says:

    gabriel wrote:
    Bonald is angry about yours and CL latest posts:

    No one cares.

    In fact, I’ll go further: without the Catholic Church and the Protestants who get called “puritan” or “fundamentalist”, there would be no Right, no opposition to feminism, anywhere in the West.

    As far as I’m concerned, there’s close to zero effective opposition to feminism from the churches. Just take a look at the sex ratios – the men have vacated the premises.


    Might I suggest to the rear-line generals of the MRM that some of the reasons for the things we do is that we’re the ones who actually have to worry about feminist counterattacks and about swaying the public?

    So that’s the lame excuse the churches have for blaming men and demanding they ‘man up’? I call it as I see it – moral cowardice. The churches have shown a complete inability to place accountability where it belongs. That’s why the pews are top heavy with born-again virgins who have hit the snooze button on their reproductive clock too many times.

  104. greyghost says:

    Gabriel
    I checked out Bonald. And made a comment. I think christian MRA’s need to get involved with teaching the church “game” (it is female psychology that is not tainted with idiology) I think I will spend time on the christian blogs and study how they think.

  105. greyghost says:

    Ray Manta
    Go to them and tell them. Tell them why and help them come up with a solution. You are living in a unique time. We all are. We are in a position to change the direction of civilization. With ideas spread in ways no one could imagine.

  106. Desiderius says:

    “It’s we Catholics who are getting attacked as “misogynist” for our opposition to abortion, divorce, and promiscuity.

    Somebody with much knowledge than me can point to how the said churches officially, nominally fight against feminism?”

    For (literally!) Christ’s sake! Agree and amplify, you fucking pussies! Pass a shit test for once in your life!

    After that, you get a place at the table to negotiate the tactical retreat of this wave of feminism, which is what the rest of the culture actually wants anyway at this point, given the wreckage of the Sexual Devolution.

  107. Desiderius says:

    zed,

    “where does having gone through yet another divorce and remarriage position him morally?”

    We all fall short of the glory of God, so actions are more or less moral, not people.

    It doesn’t say much good about his character, but we already knew that was problematic in 1995. Then again, I’ve supported worse for President before (we are not angels, and thus are not represented by them), and Romney is patient zero for utter Republican wussitude. The man has enough anti-game to turn off Oprah.

    Might have to vote for Obama again and hope the R’s get a clue next go round. Maybe losing to that zero is the shock they need to finally man up.

  108. G.L. Piggy says:

    Ray Manta:

    As far as I’m concerned, there’s close to zero effective opposition to feminism from the churches. Just take a look at the sex ratios – the men have vacated the premises.

    Feminism’s core plank is abortion. Churches and social conservatives oppose abortion. The knock on SoCons are that they uphold chivalry and fetishize the virginal feminine. They also fetishize the noble White knight, but their problem is that they have not properly accounted for the “forward” march of progress and “social justice”. SoCons are being characterized as being on the side of feminists fighting against other men. I think it is quite different. To draw a football analogy, it isn’t that our offensive line has joined the defensive line of the other team to rush us – the quarterback. Its that our offensive line has been so overwhelmed by their pass-rushers that we get sacked anyway.

    But on men leaving the church. I haven’t seen anyone make a good argument that men left the church because feminism crowded them out. but this could be a chicken-and-egg situation. I think that when societal pressure to attend church diminished with the rise of secularism and nihilism men were naturally the ones who would opted out. Men are most likely to lead authoritarian institutions, but they are also more likely to oppose them. Men don’t want to submit to Jesus or to God. We are less likely to believe in those things, thus we see no place for ourselves in the Church.

    It could be that Social conservatives address the issues faced by their flock – which is now mostly women. At the micro level, they see single women who want to live traditional lives but who can’t find mates. They don’t address men’s issues because men’s issues aren’t on their radar. Why would they be? As we’ve established, most of their flock are women.

    There’s also this: the Church deals with larger moral questions. While I’m sure they touch on issues in the justice system, they mostly urge Christians to do what’s right according to Scripture or God’s law. Man-made law is of secondary consequence. So they are operating with only slight importance placed on the potential pitfalls of marriage. They want men and women to marry, and they aren’t worried about divorce because, to them, divorce shouldn’t enter the picture.

    So, yeah, SoCons are naive, but they also largely believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  109. Newt Gingrich a social conservative? That’s setting the bar pretty low. Gingrich seems to have two strands to his politics. One is the influence of Alvin Toffler and his theory of the “third way”. This “third way” is supposed to be the post-industrial society of the future, in which the traditional family is superseded. Gingrich has called himself in the past a “conservative futurist”, reflecting the influence of Toffler. Nonetheless, the biggest influence seems to be classical liberalism. For instance, he has explained his values as follows:

    Our civilization is a shared opportunity to pursue happiness … In my reading, I found five basic principles that I believe form the heart of our civilization:
    The common understanding we share about who we are and how we came to be
    The ethic of individual responsibility
    The spirit of entrepreneurial free enterprise
    The spirit of invention and discovery
    Pragmatism and the concern for craft and excellence.
    We stand on the shoulders of Western European civilization, but we are far more futuristic, more populist, and more inclusive. American civilization is not merely a subset of Western Europe’s. We have drawn people and cultures from across the planet and integrated them into an extraordinary shared opportunity to pursue happiness.

    I’m socially conservative and I don’t recognise any social conservativism in that statement of belief. A social conservative would never define civilisation in terms of a “shared opportunity to pursue happiness” – that perhaps gives you a clue as to why Gingrich has divorced so often and why he seems unconcerned with feminism.

  110. Ray Manta says:

    G. L. Piggy wrote:
    Feminism’s core plank is abortion.

    Feminism’s core plank is a lock on reproduction. Abortion is just derivative from that. That’s a subtle but important distinction.

    Churches and social conservatives oppose abortion.

    They still align with the larger goals of feminism by consistently siding with the interests of women over men.

    But on men leaving the church. I haven’t seen anyone make a good argument that men left the church because feminism crowded them out. but this could be a chicken-and-egg situation.

    Anakin Niceguy would disagree with you – he’s written extensively about the feminization of the church. What I see is a ratchet effect where the left moves social mores in one direction while conservative forces may slow them down but don’t reverse them. So what the left pushed for 15-20 years ago becomes more or less the norm even among conservatives.

  111. Ray Manta says:

    greyghost wrote:
    Go to them and tell them. Tell them why and help them come up with a solution. You are living in a unique time. We all are. We are in a position to change the direction of civilization. With ideas spread in ways no one could imagine.

    I left a post at Bonald’s blog and pointed him towards F. Roger Devlin. Daniel Amneus is also a good source. It remains to be seen whether what they say will sink in.

  112. zed says:

    Newt Gingrich a social conservative? That’s setting the bar pretty low.

    All I’m trying to do is figure out why your team puts on the field the people you do. I haven’t figured out either rhyme or reason for it. Desiderius explained some of it above.

    Mitt Romney? Mitt Romney? Is that the best your side can offer? Maybe the Repubs will have to run their own magic negro and have the race boil down to magic negro versus magic negro.

    Oh, but wait, rumors are starting to circulate that he has one of those awful male sex drives. That counts him out. :roll:

    In order to have your political agenda in a democracy you have to win elections, or have to destroy the democracy by a military type takeover. Perhaps that is why Bonald wants a monarchy. I can only guess who his suggestion to be the first king would be. Who cares what those raggedy-ass people want, what they need is someone who knows what they need to do to tell them, right? /snark

    I really doubt that a Harold Camping/Fred Phelps ticket has much chance of winning.

    The Democratic party in the US has acted in much the same way that political parties in countries with multiple parties and parliamentary governments function – by developing their own coalition. Their stance is broad enough that a lot of people view them as being for them, not against them.

    I held my nose and voted for the walking cadaver and the feminist last time. Perhaps Desiderius is rigtht and we will have to suffer through 4 more years of the obamanoid before the Repubs here figure out that “we hate your guts and if you elect us we are going to do everything in our power to make your life miserable” is not a election-winning message.

  113. Escoffier says:

    Desiderius, I don’t know what you mean by nature v. self. What “self-evident” means is that, once you understand the nature/definition of a thing, the principles that follow from it are clear. Hence the “self-evident” truths referenced in the Declaration arise from the definition or nature of man. Understanding what a man is enables us to understand the grounding of his rights and therefore of political right.

  114. spandrell says:

    I really see no end until women employment dries up. Can´t have them respect you if they can earn a living by repeating commie slogans from the nanny state.

    So some dudes have a subculture where women are forced to respect their husbands? how is that stable? Wait until some high school friend comes up and tells her how fulfilled she is in her NPO.

  115. Desiderius says:

    Escoffier,

    “Desiderius, I don’t know what you mean by nature v. self. What “self-evident” means is that, once you understand the nature/definition of a thing, the principles that follow from it are clear. Hence the “self-evident” truths referenced in the Declaration arise from the definition or nature of man. Understanding what a man is enables us to understand the grounding of his rights and therefore of political right.”

    Thanks, I had assumed it was just raw foundationalism, not that there is anything wrong with that.

    Your explanation makes more sense.

    It also reminds me of one of my favorite books, one I’d strongly encourage you to read as well:

  116. Escoffier says:

    I’ve read some of that. The two that stand out most clearly for me are Fox and Hedgehog (which is brilliant) and Originality of Machiavelli (which is also brilliant but gets Nick only about half right). He is always fun to read.

  117. Desiderius says:

    The BBC lectures here:

    Shed a great deal of light on the dynamics that are ultimately driving the troubles discussed on this blog.

  118. Dan says:

    This is Dan here, from over at Mangan’s blog. Fun to see my comments get some attention!!

    Aqua wrote:
    “Mrs. Dalrock only has two kids, while Dan is talking about keep his wife pregnant most of the time, which means they have A LOT more kids than Mrs. Dalrock does, hence A LOT more household chores that need to get done while someone else minds the kids and babies.”

    Yup.

    I am not impressed with guys who think that going on some kind of marriage strike until women get the message will actually work. Gee, there’s a brilliant strategy. Because then when 1950s American values are restored I will drink my handy-dandy magic elixer and return to my youth and have the marriage 1.0 that my father or granddad had.

    A marriage strike is not some brilliant new strategy. If you want to see the effects of a marriage strike, look at Europe, which faced feminism with a weak religious foundation. Refusal of a generation to form families is already a clusterbomb on society and the economy, and the worst isn’t even there yet. If you are a bitter nihilist and nothing left gives you a rise like civilizational downfall, then head to a European country (take your pick!).

    Me, I’ll just play the hand I was dealt as best I can. And it wasn’t all aces, either ;-). I grew up part of a family of six in a 3 bedroom house and was on financial aid throughout college. I have more thoughts on churches, but for starters I’ll note that any church willing to toss out the whole gender requirement on marriage probably is pretty flaccid about everything else too.

  119. PT Barnum says:

    Dan said:

    Me, I’ll just play the hand I was dealt as best I can. And it wasn’t all aces, either ;-) .

    Dan said:

    I am in a religious marriage and I would have to call myself thoroughly happy. I went to an Ivy League University and graduated with honors. I am a fairly successful federal employee.

    An idiot could be born into Dan’s station and do just as well. Maybe Dan is an idiot. Cause all that was required for his success was a warm body.

  120. Ray Manta says:

    Dan wrote:
    Me, I’ll just play the hand I was dealt as best I can. And it wasn’t all aces,

    Poor little you. You’re an overpaid functionary who leeches off the taxpayer, has no unusual talents, and does nothing important. Your “success” is no more than dumb luck , yet you have the gall to criticize men who don’t want to go through the marriage gauntlet as weenies.

    I am not impressed with guys who think that going on some kind of marriage strike until women get the message will actually work. Gee, there’s a brilliant strategy. Because then when 1950s American values are restored I will drink my handy-dandy magic elixer and return to my youth and have the marriage 1.0 that my father or granddad had.

    Won’t be the 1950s. This is the 21st century, the era of technological wonders. However it pans out, you and your ilk will be irrelevant.

  121. Dan says:

    Ray –

    I work for the Patent Office. We don’t take tax dollars. So don’t worry, I’m not taking your precious, precious money.

    But yes, I find people men who avoid marriage because they are afraid of the gauntlet are usually not very impressive individuals. If that describes you, then so be it. Most men of accomplishment that I can think of have tried it at least once, and the ones that didn’t had reasons other than fear.

    Frankly, I think its more likely that you avoid marriage because only third rate women put up with your bile.

  122. Ray Manta says:

    Dan wrote:
    I work for the Patent Office. We don’t take tax dollars.
    So don’t worry, I’m not taking your precious, precious money.

    Thank God for small favors. Not that I think your office is any great boon for anyone beyond patent trolls. Its primary purpose these days appears to be to stifle innovation, not encourage it.
    I’ll stand by my previous point that what you do isn’t scalable to the average American man.

    Frankly, I think its more likely that you avoid marriage because only third rate women put up with your bile.

    Guess again. I’m married – to a foreign woman. I’m definitely not touting that as a panacea but for me it was a major trade up in terms of the lack of attitude and obesity (all too common in American women). Dalrock is also married but doesn’t pooh-pooh the social and economic arrayed against men in having a relationship with women.

  123. Tim says:

    Dan, you’re the guy who went to Harvard…on loans? Look, I’ve met a few well-connected guys over the years, and none of them work for the government. Last guy I met who was rich literally paints for a living, in Maui. 47 years old. He just paints and sells his paintings overseas. He inherited two houses on Maui and lots of acreage on the Big Island. He doesn’t actually “work”, he has hobbies. A guy like you should be in the private sector.

  124. P Ray says:

    It’s interesting to note that New Scientist in 2008, predicted that about 30% of every woman in Australia and New Zealand born since 1975 …
    would never gain a partner.
    I’m guessing it has something to do with misandry.

  125. Anonymous Reader says:

    PRay
    It’s interesting to note that New Scientist in 2008, predicted that about 30% of every woman in Australia and New Zealand born since 1975 …
    would never gain a partner.
    I’m guessing it has something to do with misandry.

    Nah. It’s due to a shortage of men who will “man UP!” and marry them, no matter how unfit for marriage the women in question may be, no matter how crappy the laws have become, no matter what a bad deal marriage may be, the solution is always the same: “MANUP!”.

    Just ask Bennett, Bonald, Ulysses, etc. they’ll tell you all about it…

    They’ll tell you “misandry” doesn’t exist, as a bonus.

  126. Richard says:

    I liked the style of this post. The writer of this knows more about the politics of what each label is about (ie. If someone has this view than they are a “whatever”). I have been wondering if the national debt caused by the governments has more to do with the decline of western civilization than people’s personal lives, but it also appears that feminist no-fault divorce did not improve society either and it’s still in the legal system. I know people who quote scripture to other people (sometimes not even getting the quote right), but then when the section on divorce is pointed out to them they have no response even though they have been divorced twice. I am not in favor of divorce in that people who decide to get married should take it seriously and have the intention that they will stay together especially if they have kids, but not many people seem to be willing to even try to improve themselves to have a happy marriage. There was another celebrity divorce with Hulk Hogan losing 70%. Does the author think that those who get married should have a PNA? I would suggest authors have more blog entries such as this style to explain the issues and what each group is about.

  127. K(yle) says:

    Social conservatism flows from the Churches, and the Churches are ‘feminized’ as apparently Anakin Niceguy has written about. A better term might be sororal though. Women parishioners dominate the church in attendance and even more so in engagement and enthusiasm.

    The male clergy are disengaged from actual leadership and listen to what their women want, and that is the direction most Churches will go in.

    It’s a cultural meme, a stereotype that the daughters of single mothers are promiscuous, while the daughters of intact families with strong, ‘Alpha’ fathers are less so. If you are looking for a slut, look for the girl with divorced parents that lives with her mom and hates her dad.

    The Church is a single mother, making decisions without much input from fathers. It’s never going to hold women accountable for anything, any more than any other virtually all female, and female led movement is going to.

    It will hold women accountable about as often as an individual modern female is going to hold herself accountable for anything. In a neurotic, guilt ridden way that isn’t constructive, and is very receptive to any explanation that shifts blame. It doesn’t matter what the Bible, or tradition say. It doesn’t matter what their theoretical social framework dictates they believe when they’ve had time to sit down and think about. Once all of the scripture, the doctrine, the counting of dancing angels meets the rationalization hamster it all comes out sounding very similar to every other crackpot female idea.

    If the Church was capable of passing shit tests reliably they could filter out most of that female noise, and find the crucial male signal that is basically completely missing from their current transmissions.

    Their problem is, that they can’t send out the message that their bitches need to sit down and shut up. They’ve ‘empowered’ them too much at this point. They’ll flake, and ‘divorce’ the Church. They’ve already basically excluded any man that would side with them in favor of betas in the pews who will simply capitulate to the feelings of the female parishioners on any subject. The Church has no control over their own women. Hell, Lycurgus couldn’t control them either apparently, so it’s hard to blame them on that. Bitches be crazy.

  128. Pingback: Playing career woman | Dalrock

  129. Mark says:

    Funny how there is the pejorative comment about Japanese men being less manly than American guys, by drinking and not doing the dishes, because the divorce rates in Japan are w-a-a-a-a-y below the divorce rates in America.

  130. Pingback: Do not be alarmed. | Dalrock

  131. Pingback: It’s all Related « Free Northerner

  132. Pingback: Just Four Opinions: The Daily Beast Edition | Just Four Guys

  133. Pingback: Why isn’t Carl good enough? | Dalrock

  134. Pingback: The Church Man | The Reinvention of Man

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s