My comment to Zippy Catholic

Update:  Zippy and I have agreed to disagree. Here is my most recent comment to Zippy at his site:

Dalrock:

I presume it is mutual that we are past the point where we might have a beer (or a scotch) and put all of this past us.

Not from my POV. I’d buy you a beer tomorrow.

I’ve given this a bit of thought and while we clearly don’t (and won’t) see eye to eye on this issue I’ve given it awful hard to you personally and you are responding here with a great deal of grace. You even offered again after I continued. That can’t have been easy and in my book is a very manly gesture.

If you are still so inclined, I propose we agree to disagree on this issue, raise a virtual glass, and look forward to what we might learn from one another in the new year.

My prayers are for the best for you and yours in 2013, and that God will bless you.

Here is Zippy’s Reply:

Dalrock:
May Providence smile upon you, your family, and all of your projects in the new year.

If someone has one handy, please give Cane Caldo a hanky.

———————-  Original Post, Comments Now Closed  ———————-

Note:  Several of my commenters have questioned the need for my previous post, and I think this is a valid question.  zhai2nan2 offered a humorous link to a quickmeme on internet fights, and I agree that this is generally an accurate depiction of the phenomenon.  Empathologicalism framed it similarly:

But…..I guess pick your favorite guy and escalate the drama!

Again, this is very often a fair observation.  As I explain below this is to some extent for me personal, but there is an extremely important larger issue around the honest exchange of ideas and the most basic forms of blogging courtesy required for this to occur.

I want to stress that I’m not looking to silence Zippy, but that I continue to ask him to have a fair and honest discussion, something I’ve been asking for since August of this year.

I’ve slightly modified the comment below to include links, but you can see the original comment in context here.  I’ll update below with a link to any response from Zippy [done], so please let me know if one is up and I haven’t yet done so.

————————————

From the comments of some of your readers I gather that my short 2.5 years of blogging experience pales in comparison to your own length of experience. However, even in my much shorter blogging time I quickly noticed that any time I mention another blogger in a post who is at least controversial to my audience that this often has the unintended side effect of hanging them up as a sort of piñata for my commenters to tear apart personally. Ironically this effect is worst when I quote the other blogger not to criticize them but to find some area of limited common agreement. This is to a large degree an unavoidable cost to having the kinds of discussions which I find most valuable, the kinds of conversations with the potential to profit from vigorous intellectual disagreement and synthesize something larger than either side began with. However, as a moderator I can at least be aware of the footing I’ve put the other blogger in by analyzing their ideas in front of a hostile crowd. The absolute worst thing I can do is moderately praise a fellow blogger to whom my audience is hostile to and then prevent the “foreign” blogger from defending himself. Censoring those who vigorously disagree with the blogger would make no sense either, because this prevents the very exchange I hope to profit from. If I do this I’m only hanging the poor outside-of-the-group blogger up as a piñata to be attacked purely for entertainment, since the only potential benefit is now off the table.

Consider your treatment of me in your original rubbernecking post. You hung me up in front of a hostile crowd while expressing limited agreement for my ideas. So far, no foul, and I’m eager for the potential to profit from exactly this type of exchange so I’m happy to pay the price of admission. When I do it to other bloggers I’m aware of the position I’m putting them in, and I think this is tacitly understood amongst all but the least experienced bloggers because they generally handle the situation with a great deal of grace.

But you then tilted the field away from an intellectual exchange by tying the hands of myself and anyone else who wanted to have the exchange. Lydia opened the comments with a long series of slanders against me personally, without even pretending to offer anything of intellectual value. When Chris called her on this early in the thread you made it as clear as possible that you wouldn’t permit anyone to challenge Lydia when she behaved in this way. You rebuked him despite the fact that Chris explained that he works in mental health and regularly counsels men who have failed in their attempts at suicide after being crushed by the system. If you look at the thread you will see that his comment closes with this explanation and the very next words in the thread are your very strong rebuke to Chris for daring to challenge Lydia. She was as you explained a “lady”, who would receive special protection on your blog. Then when another commenter pointed out her refusal to argue with logic, facts, and reason you found your moderator legs yet again and smacked him down publicly for doing this. Yet not once in the 130+ comment exchange did you rebuke Lydia for her repeated slander of me. I have come to expect to have to argue my ideas in front of a hostile crowd on an absurdly tilted playing field, and elected to simply “play through”. But to say that you were an ungracious host would be the epitome of understatement. Adding insult to injury, you have repeatedly lectured me since then on my own failure to keep my commenters in line, frequently alluding to the superior class of commenters on your own blog. This after setting the stage for your commenters to abuse me personally in the most intellectually dishonest ways and actively preventing any and all defense. And all of this merely for sport, since as you yourself explained in your Dalrock and a Hard Case post the only possible profit to be gained, a serious exchange of ideas, you allowed Lydia to take off the table.

Yet with all of this I’ve held my tongue and elected to let it slide, because I still hoped to profit from an exchange of ideas. Yet in your Cynicism post you now declare that Lydia was right in her marathon slander of me on your blog, and both of your last two posts amount to what you yourself define as the sin of calumny:

I prefer linear comments because they make it easier to follow a thread over time. I also prefer them because they encourage us to directly quote the part of someone else’s post to which we are responding. This has lots of benefits, not least of which is that it makes it a bit harder (though of course not impossible) to pretend someone said something he didn’t say. Bad paraphrase (“Bob said he wants to pitchfork children!”) is one of my pet peeves, though I know I’m not completely immune myself. I consider it a vicious form of calumny when it is done on purpose; so lets never do it on purpose and try hard not to do it on accident.

I can’t say if you are doing this on purpose of course, since that would require me to psychoanalyze you over the wire. All I can do is ask you whether it was on purpose or not, continue to ask you to cease, and remind you of your other words on the topic:

Calumny is when someone tells falsehoods about a person in a way damaging to that person’s reputation or standing in the community. In the case of the Todd Akin affair, many people have told lies about what he actually said…

I’ve personally only seen one single person retract and apologize, and good for him. That’s the kind of guy I want in the moral foxhole with me.

Is Zippy Catholic the kind of man you would like to be in the moral foxhole with?

I’ll also politely ask that you stop referring to me as “brain damaged” as you did here, even while accusing me of ad hominem using a form of argument you yourself define as a vicious form of calumny. If I’ve committed ad hominem, please do me the courtesy of quoting the text and explaining my error. If you can’t do this, please acknowledge that this is the case and cease making the claim.

————————————

Update:  Zippy’s responses are here.  I’m not impressed to say the least, but I’ve said my piece.  I’ll get some new posts out time permitting.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Manliness, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to My comment to Zippy Catholic

  1. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    What is interesting to me is the intellectual blinders that people will strap on as they get close to an uncomfortable topic, especially one that may cause them to rethink a long-standing or cherished position, or to ensure that they don’t offend someone they consider a friend or supporter. ZC’s cognitive dissonance rings quite loudly here.

    The best each of us can do (since we are all susceptible to this form of pride/cowardice), is to strive for the humility to honestly self-examine when needed, and ensure to the best of our human capabilities to correct when necessary. For Christians, guidance through prayer is always a starting point or an additive to this introspection.

  2. Altimanix says:

    “Is Zippy Catholic the kind of man you would like to be in the moral foxhole with?”

    Zippy in a foxhole?

    Not likely as he avoids honest debate like his life depends on it. Obscure, evade, ignore…whatever ‘he’ needs to avoid addressing any points made against him that he knows that he can’t counter – which looks to be any point of substance. As has been pointed out, he argues like a woman. Where is his addressing of Dalrock’s questions?

    He’s more of a REMF than a soldier. Pathetic.

    Even as an atheist, I see the moral values in Christianity, its insight into how people and societies work, a moral code amongst the religious padding. There is much good to be found in it’s original values, but the modern church? no, not really. Like Zippy it is incapable of direct debate on subjects of substance. A church, or individual of faith, that refuses to address reality as experienced by men is of no value to men, or indeed to society.

    This is why I hold Dalrock in high regard; he puts reality and its effects on men ahead of some woolly minded, handwringing, feminist apologising femme-friendly bullshit. Ignoring difficult facts because they are inconvenient is weak beyond belief. Is Zippy even capable of seeing his irrelevance in the modern world? And beyond Zippy, the modern chuch’s incapability to address the weaknesses of women and the destruction wrought in the name of feminism? It’s all in the book, but you have to read the awkward bits too, and preach them, else continue on the path of irrelevance.

    Time to man up Zippy

  3. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    I will add that Lydia provided ZC a superior role model for strapping on blinders when going into uncomfortable discussions. Her tacit avoidance of the topic at hand and shaming of opposing parties (as a philosopher) was itself shameful. It will now color any future analysis of her’s that may I read.

  4. Mr Green Man says:

    Thank you, Dalrock, for also revealing to us this false teacher, Lydia McGrew. We are commanded to provide a reason and to speak it boldly when it is demanded of us, not to attempt to silence the debate and play “Let’s you and him fight.”

  5. meh says:

    Are we having fun yet? Why are you even bothering with the female side of the web. Comment on it sure, but why engage it? It just gives them another reason to point out how ‘jaded’ or ‘indoctrinated’ the red pill folks are. Let them figure it out when they can’t find anyone to marry.

  6. Dalrock says:

    I’ve updated the OP with a link to Zippy’s response.

  7. zlzozzlzlzoz

    childrenz behanve!!! BEHAVEZZ lzozzozoozzozozo

    love thy neighborz! my poor little lost flcok of shepepz sheeeepz

    one of the reasons
    chcirtsisansz are lsoing the battle
    as marrgaie declines while debt and eebauchery and debasement triumph
    as thefmaily disspipatesand de is detroyed
    as teh anti-cchiritin state grows
    is that they spend so much timez attackingne-anotehrz
    splitting hairz lzlozzolzlz
    instead of doing what dalrock doesz
    and writing an elqouent blog with fatcs, elucictciationz statiisticz and stufzz

    be a borther to a brother
    even thoug he be form another moether!!!

    lzozozlozozlz

  8. Art Deco says:

    The Catholic blogger who used to post with the handle ‘Torquemada’ concluded it was a waste of time to attempt a discussion with ‘Zippy’. You might consider a similar policy.

  9. This conflict is over. So let it be written. So let it be done.

  10. Actually to the extent that issues are being outed I think this is fantastic. As cheesy and conciliatory as it may seem, I do see validity in both sides (setting aside the “my dad can beat up your dad” nonsense) and it deserves a decent airing. I would have chosen a different focus point than Dalrock specifically (assuming Zippy did choose Dalrock…..????), some other bloggers or some comment participants perhaps, its not really important who any individual would cite.

    One unequivocal (in my opinion….and yes I realize that is somewhat oxymoronic) thing that Lydia did that more/less devastated her attempt at discourse was to claim, *oh how tedious and boring a notion that I actually spend any time reading said drivel, I can’t be bothered with such, I just rely on my awesome awesomeness when I deride with my flawless forensics*

  11. This conflict is over. So let it be written. So let it be done.

    No it isn’t

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argument_Sketch

  12. Oh, oh I’m sorry! This is abuse. You want room 12A, just down the hall.

  13. Middle Aged Male says:

    That was never 5 minutes.

  14. Jacob Ian Stalk says:

    The game of Let’s You and Him Fight has this name for very good reason. Lydia is no doubt relishing the duel. Preparing herself for the victor too, no doubt.

    It is perhaps for this very reason that Grace is the God’s greatest gift to mankind. The power of grace dissolves the deadly game of LYAHF and provides not only a resolution for the men but a way to destroy the hypergamous beast that threatens disunity. Imagine if either Dalrock or Zippy simply gave up the need to assert they are right and the other wrong, EVEN IF THEY ARE RIGHT. The power of grace will have an effect on them both: they’ll stop duelling and seek ways to integrate their ideas. Without a woman at the centre of this duel, it would not have even been a blip on the blogdar. So it has been for God’s men throughout history. Without the women, men seek to profit from every encounter with each other, rough and tumble notwithstanding.

    The enemy here is not Zippy’s stubbornness, or Dalrock’s, or even Lydia. It is the evil one. LYAHF is the evil one pitting a man against his brother through the hypergamous urges of a woman. It is jungle law; the treason of Eve and the complicity of Adam. My advice, for what it’s worth, is to crush the serpent that seduced Lydia into taking the judgement seat (which she did extensively). This can only be done through the grace of our Lord.

    To spread the gospel of Jesus Christ is not to see which man is right or wrong on any matter, or to defend what each perceives as ‘rightness’, or even to reach accord, but to be the one who shows grace. Is this not what it means to agree in the Lord (Phil 4:1-5)?

    God’s gift of grace seems to be the only effective way to defeat the serpent and prevent its poisoned target from turning a man against his brother.

  15. You have not paid!

    “An argument is a series of statements made by Zippy, set to contradict statements made by Dalrock against a backdrop of a red pill manosphere”

    “No it isnt”

    There now…..THATS an argument

  16. JHJ says:

    Zippy Catholic is just confirming that I was right passing over Catholicism rather quickly when I was looking at Christian churches that might still in any sort of meaningful way be, you know, Christian, a few years back. Just just as supersaturated with feminism and “man up!” white knightery as any Protestant outfit. There is slightly less of that in Orthodoxy, but at least in America even those churches were very accommodating of frivorcées and single heroic mothers looking for Good Christian Betas to pay for their thug spawn, with no real price to pay in terms of congregational acceptance.

  17. I’m new to the Manosphere, and trying to wrap my brain around different factions. I’m not too surprised at some traditional social conservative interest in the red pill, given socon opposition to liberal feminism. It seems to me it is an uneasy relationship due to the libertinism espoused by some pick-up artist types, and the humanism of those who examine sex roles from an evolutionary standpoint.

  18. I’m not too surprised at some traditional social conservative interest in the red pill,

    But this is not correct. The tradcons you likely speak of have zero interest in the red pill. I realize this gets hair splittingly confusing but traditional conservatism and Christianity SHOULD be very red pill. Its a testimony to the efficacy of feminism that it has winnowed into trad con and Christian life and draws those things up over its head like cover hiding in plain sight. The most insidious feminists are the evangelical ones because they can play “who me, a feminist?”

    Opposition to liberal feminism is easy stuff and not very motivating anymore. Its hard to be both red pill and socially conservative and Christian. There are some of us around though. We are reflexively rejected by the mildly informed until, I guess, we get vetted.

  19. ybm says:

    lol now the game cult is starting to devour its right wing christian friends too? Poor Keyster, he will be devastated! What do you guys have left now? PUAs, racists and a sex tourist who can’t get laid.

    What a coalition you’ve formed! Congrats to you Roissysphere! I’m sure the MRM is just heartbroken that they’ve severed ties to your massive support base.

  20. Sharrukin says:

    gregariouswolf says:

    I’m not too surprised at some traditional social conservative interest in the red pill, given socon opposition to liberal feminism.

    Some is correct. Social conservatives are in opposition to feminism as they definite it. It has however seeped into the entire culture, and we do get upset when our own behavior is pointed out that is largely in service to feminism. That also gets wrapped up in the natural inclination to come to the defense of a lady in distress, however manufactured that distress may be.

    It seems to me it is an uneasy relationship due to the libertinism espoused by some pick-up artist types, and the humanism of those who examine sex roles from an evolutionary standpoint.

    It is somewhat disconcerting, but the truth is what it is, regardless of how much we might wish it otherwise.

  21. Brendan says:

    I’m new to the Manosphere, and trying to wrap my brain around different factions. I’m not too surprised at some traditional social conservative interest in the red pill, given socon opposition to liberal feminism. It seems to me it is an uneasy relationship due to the libertinism espoused by some pick-up artist types, and the humanism of those who examine sex roles from an evolutionary standpoint.

    Actually I think the basis of it is that social conservatives and, to an even greater degree, traditionalists are interested in systemic solutions rather than personal/pragmatic ones. Take chivalry, for example. Social conservatives and traditionalists are generally extremely pro-chivalry, because they see it as a part of a social order they would like to restore/resurrect. The more pragmatic guys in the manosphere, whether “Gamers” or not, view chivalry as mostly self-defeating on the personal level, and so are skeptical of it. Socons and trads may realize that their preferred social order is not returning soon, but they don’t want any *more* steps taken away from it, such as men abandoning chivalry wholesale. This leaves men in a very bad spot in the meantime — acting according to the rules of a social order which no longer exists, and in the context of one which actively punishes men who engage in this behavior in many cases — the socons and trads answer is generally “suck it up, man up, men must lead us out of this, etc.”, where the manosphere typically sees this as futile and instead adapts practical approaches that deal with the current system that is in place, whether they think it is a good one or not.

    To me, that is where the hate comes from — socons and trads hate it when more steps are taken away from their preferred order, even if these are pragmatic in light of the current existing order, and manospherians hate it when socons and trads insist on men opening themselves up for extreme risks simply for the ideological hope for a cultural restoration that seems a long way off rather than, you know, actually helping guys live with the system we’ve got currently.

  22. BC says:

    I agree with Brendan’s comment. It’s largely an issue of theory versus practice, and the so-called ‘gamer’ manospherians, many of whom aren’t PUA and don’t actively apply game to play the field, just don’t care to be used as canon fodder in the socons/tradcons’ IMO futile crusade to bring back a warm and fuzzy preferred state of affairs. Well, sorry but that ship that has sailed and won’t be coming back absent extreme socioeconomic circumstances.

  23. Farm Boy says:

    The Catholic blogger who used to post with the handle ‘Torquemada’ concluded it was a waste of time to attempt a discussion with ‘Zippy’. You might consider a similar policy.

    Perhaps he gets tingles from such discourse. Best to leave him be.

  24. Brendan could not be more wrong as it is written. It’s yet again the parody of traditional conservatives that younger liberal men who claim red pill status must use to juxtapose against (whether he is young or liberal matters not) in order to fit the round peg of anti feminism into the square hole of liberalism.
    Liberalism necessarily feeds feminism and vice versa, the reason that will be so angrily rebuked is the same reason faith is rebuked. It requires more than they are willing to give personally.
    Let the mischaracterizations begin.

  25. Dalrock,

    Libel, from the Latin libellus, a little book, is when someone writes something down against you and publishes it. Slander is verbal. We may imagine that these conversations are verbal, but they are in fact written: ergo, Lydia libeled you.

    Were you in fact a Cultural Marxist and a whiner, you could sue her for it.

  26. Previous comment typed on phone, I want to elaborate.
    As insignificant as this opinion may well be, I have to say it. I have really tried to relate to the socon tradcon reflex prejudice in the sphere, especially here because I don’t necessarily think Dalrock is bought all in on it. But it just gets to be too much.

    What it appears to be is a coincident parallel frustration being vented in most cases. That there are absolutely truly really tradcons, even MOST tradcons, that are white knights, manginas, whatever is irrefutable. That they need correction and rebuke is irrefutable. But this begins to take on, as I said, not really a targeted point for that overlap, but rather a handy device for liberals who wish to stay both red pill and liberal.

    Dalrock, I realize your challenge is show me all these trad con red pill men and I accept that point, I said so above. I am not arguing for a preponderance or lack there of. I’m noticing a pattern, an extra burst of enthusiasm which exudes when tradcon is added to any feminist concept targeted. That too would be fine IF also acknowledging that at root the basic ideology of liberalism necessarily leads to feminism, hand in hand, while as corrupt and deceived as they are, the frame of the tradcon, minus the mindless pandering to women, COULD be antithetical to feminism far far more naturally than any liberal bent. If that were the motive to the derision of traditional conservatives I’m all in.

    But increasingly its obvious that it is not. Its simultaneous attacks on two things whose misguided overlap could well be coincidence for all they care. This utterly prevents much in the way of potential common ground because those doing this would reject traditional conservatism regardless of the actual belief set on gender order, simply by (and in a way related to something Zippy said) of the broad brush, that again is not always motivated by true dispassionate analysis.

    If anyone even cares, this would ignite a firestorm of indignation among many of the heavies, piling on with yet more at best fatalism, and at worst outright disdain for things traditional and red pill by denying the possibility it can exist. It would require things of people to say that, it would require personal things of them that they are unwilling to even consider.

    Are these bad people? Maybe a few. But I’m not proselytizing and usually just walk it off. I’ll try and do that again.

  27. Shinzaemon says:

    I am catholic and sad to say I empathiticaly disasociate my self from Zippy and Lydia both. The are simply retards. I have been watching this sad debacle these last few days and it is plain for all to see:
    Lydia calls the shots on Zippy’s blog. Get your balls out of her purse dude.
    She never responded with anything but emotionalism. Nothing.
    I came to the red pill due to EPL. So what if it is cyncal? It kicked my ass even it did not have name.
    zippy needs to prove he is actually a man I have serious doubts. Pics or GTFO.

    Both these punks have been spewing well worn shaming language and nothing else , what do expect?

    I am divorced, red pill and never going back. Dark days ahead? Sure, but so what. The lives of men are hard. Nothing new under the sun.

    Dalrock,
    For me this is the most important blog on the web. You saved my life. These punks are beneath contempt, don’t let this be RCC thing. They are delusional wimps. I say this because I have read this entire debacle and learned nothing meaningful. I choose red pill truth against pretty lies with no regrets.

    [D: Thanks for the kind words Shinzaemon. I'm very sorry to hear about your situation. You will be in my prayers. I certainly don't and haven't seen this as a RCC thing.]

  28. Bill says:

    Zippy expresses himself in a vaguely linear manner so I would conclude he is an ultra effeminate man rather than a woman. He seems like a typical white knight. I picture a morbidly obese guy with a beard desperately throwing himself in the direction of any potential female attention, completely unrestricted by self-respect, principle or reason.

  29. Shinzaemon says:

    Dalrock,
    Thank you. My story has been more eloquently expressed by other commenters before. Your thoughts are a honor. Keep up the Great work you are doing. It really means a lot.
    Sincerely,

    Shinzaemon

  30. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for the correction electricangel1978 . You are right, even though it was in writing the conversational nature of it had me thinking of the spoken word. Just to head off any potential internet rumors though I don’t have any interest in suing.

    I assume this is clear, but my point was that Zippy loosed Lydia on us while tying our hands. His defense is that I’ve misunderstood why he did this, but this misses the mark entirely. In the end it doesn’t matter why he chose to be such a terrible host, the point is he was. As I stated what Lydia had to offer is standard fare and in my expectation the price of admission; my skin is pretty thick, which is why I would never have mentioned it had he not followed on recently claiming I had proven Lydia right all along. But why create the conflict only to use your power as moderator to prevent the opportunity for the only possible beneficial outcome, an honest discussion of ideas? The only other reason to bring up a controversial (to your audience) blogger is for your commenters to pummel as pure sport, for entertainment value. I don’t doubt that he wished for the honest discussion, and I’ll have to leave it to him to explain why he actively allowed Lydia to prevent this from happening on his personal blog. For all of their talk of Chivalry, acting honorably toward another man when he is on your turf, when you essentially invited him into the situation, should be an obvious obligation. Similarly having the basic decency to name who you are speaking against is something every man should understand is part of how men with honor handle themselves.

  31. Farm Boy says:

    Zippy Catholic is just confirming that I was right passing over Catholicism rather quickly

    NACALT, thank goodness

  32. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Dalrock, I realize your challenge is show me all these trad con red pill men and I accept that point, I said so above.

    I understand that NATCALT. However, as you state my reply is that the inability to point out where these men are who are fighting the good fight within Traditional Conservatism says a great deal. This is very much like the problem with modern Christianity. Where else but in the Christian manosphere are Christians really challenging the rampant feminist corruption of Christianity?

    I am not arguing for a preponderance or lack there of. I’m noticing a pattern, an extra burst of enthusiasm which exudes when tradcon is added to any feminist concept targeted. That too would be fine IF also acknowledging that at root the basic ideology of liberalism necessarily leads to feminism, hand in hand, while as corrupt and deceived as they are, the frame of the tradcon, minus the mindless pandering to women, COULD be antithetical to feminism far far more naturally than any liberal bent. If that were the motive to the derision of traditional conservatives I’m all in.

    I can’t speak for others, but I challenge Trad Cons for being feminist because challenging feminists for their feminism would be absurd. Like I’ve said before, it is very much like the Wile E. Coyote and sheepdog cartoon. It is the coyote’s job to try to steal the sheep. I’m more interested in why the sheepdog is doing so.

    What it appears to be is a coincident parallel frustration being vented in most cases. That there are absolutely truly really tradcons, even MOST tradcons, that are white knights, manginas, whatever is irrefutable. That they need correction and rebuke is irrefutable. But this begins to take on, as I said, not really a targeted point for that overlap, but rather a handy device for liberals who wish to stay both red pill and liberal.

    Who are you referring to as liberal red pillers? I certainly don’t see Brendan as one. Do you mean me? If so, what positions do I hold which you consider liberal? My background is very conservative, and I have done a fair amount of reading on the nature of the communist conspiracy in the west during the cold war. As Lavazza pointed out some time back, I have an obvious love of guns and pickup trucks. I also have what I hope is a painfully obvious commitment to traditional marriage and traditional sexual morality, and this is my fundamental disagreement with those who hold the label Traditional Conservative. I’m not saying it is impossible that I hold some views one would consider liberal, but I’m drawing a blank so I’d appreciate it if you would help me out.

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empathalogicalism, I have a simple question. When was the last time you heard, or read, a traditional conservative express any concern over the number of divorced men who commit suicide? It’s no secret that a man who is in the machinery of the divorce industry is X times more likely to kill himself, where X seems to be a number between 3 and 6, depending on the source. So let’s choose a conservative 4. Men kill themselves more often than women do, probably due to the “problem solving” nature of men. But after 30 years or more of the divorce industry, after over a generation of men killing themselves in the abject, dark despair of their entire life being torn apart – isn’t it time for the traditional conservative to maybe pipe up, a little bit?

    If traditional conservatives are so seriously pro life, shouldn’t they be willing to at least talk about an issue that causes men to choose their own death, rather than put up with another day of pain? It’s not like they have to actually do anything. I’m not asking them to stop by the side of the road and take care of a man who was beaten and robbed by thieves, it’s ok if they hurry on by in their fancy holy robes. But why can’t they at least expend a few puffs of air, or a few dozen keystrokes, on this?

    ZippyCatholic? The DarwinCatholics? Maggie Gallagher? Focus on the Family? Any Defenders of Marriage? King. A. Matthew King? I can go on and on, and in every case, I cannot recall ever having seen a single posting, a single article, a single paragraph, no, not even a single simple line of text in which any of the people and/ or groups who insist they are “traditional” and “conservative” have one tiny peep to make, when it comes to men killing themselves as a result of divorce.

    Am I a cynic to suggest that maybe this lack is because the “traditional conservative” simply doesn’t have a problem with it? That men taking their own lives while in the agony of divorce is just nothing they regard as worth discussing? If that is true, then I do not wish any of those people to ever lecture me about “brother’s keeper” or “pro life” concepts, ever again, under any circumstances. The stench of the hypocrite is not something I enjoy.

    Now, Empathalogicalism and others, you know where I stand.

    PS: Shinzaemon, do not despair, ever. Never allow the things that have happened to grind you or drag you to despair. Above all, never harm yourself because of a woman. Never. It is not ever worth it. There is always a way to find some contentment, as many of the men over the years who have also been through divorce can testify. It is not easy, but a man can survive, adapt, and to some degree overcome, if he stays away from the pit of despair.

  34. Vicomte says:

    What would Jesus do?

  35. Sharrukin says:

    Vicomte says:

    What would Jesus do?

    Use a whip?

  36. TFH says:

    Why did ybm conduct a drive-by to bring up his ‘anti-Game’ obsession? What relevance does that have to this topic?

    Isn’t he the one who claims Gamers go around provoking people, and demanding that they ‘get off of his lawn’?

    Anyway, I only bring this up because it is a perfect demonstration of one of my maxims, which is that anyone who makes a hugely inaccurate accusation, is merely engaging in projection. The accusation is the projection seeking release. This is a perfect example of that.

  37. Samson J. says:

    Actually I think the basis of it is that social conservatives and, to an even greater degree, traditionalists are interested in systemic solutions rather than personal/pragmatic ones…

    To me, that is where the hate comes from — socons and trads hate it when more steps are taken away from their preferred order, even if these are pragmatic in light of the current existing order, and manospherians hate it when socons and trads insist on men opening themselves up for extreme risks simply for the ideological hope for a cultural restoration that seems a long way off rather than, you know, actually helping guys live with the system we’ve got currently.

    This is a brilliant comment, and captures perfectly my frustration with the manosphites who are frustrated with traditionalist conservatives. I say this in case anyone doubted the truth of what Brendan offers here.

  38. Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    [M]y point was that Zippy loosed Lydia on us while tying our hands. [... ] Similarly having the basic decency to name who you are speaking against is something every man should understand is part of how men with honor handle themselves.

    So, let me make sure I have this right.

    The first complaint is that I gave a commenter too much free rein in attacking you, which is probably true by my own standards but nevertheless is more than a little ironic given how you run things here. Supposedly this is combined with me tying your hands by insisting (as I always do at my place) on civility. Precisely which comments of yours did I block or delete or even redact in that discussion? None. So if your hands were tied in terms of substantive engagement, it wasn’t by me.

    The second complaint is that I won’t admit that my two recent posts are all about Dalrock. Er, OK. But they aren’t all about Dalrock.

  39. Yes, NACALT.

    The Catholic Church is an odd duck these days. She still has the reputation of being the oldest and most powerful reactionary institution in the world. And she is, on paper. The Vatican has been tarred for cracking down on radical feminist nuns this year when in reality that crackdown is forty years overdue. Leftards bitch and moan about how the Church is soooo sexist for not ordaining women as priests, when anyone who has darkened the door step of a Catholic parish within the last thirty years could tell you that 80% of the lay employees are women. And having such a heavily female workforce has all of the implications you think it does, I promise you. Some priests I’ve known have made me think the Church is already ordaining women.

    I stick with Catholicism because I believe it’s true first and foremost. Truth cannot contradict truth, so I’m not afraid of delving further into the manosphere. As somebody else put it, I was cynical long before I found these blogs; they’ve provided a coherent theoretical framework to help me make sense of what made me cynical. The Church doesn’t have to be infected with feminism and modernism. I don’t think it will be forever.

  40. Goodness Dalrock, no way do i consider you a liberal red piller. If that was implied it was a mistake. No…..you are not

    Anonymous reader, its a worthy question about when was the last time a tradcon took on suicide as you indicate. I have certainly done it, and a handful of others. I openly admitted the dearth of same among my handful. Your question is both a good one and valid one, and yet one that greases skids for aggressive liberals to denounce what is good and true about traditional conservatism.

    I am big time about outing Christian conservatives that are feminists and that please and pander women. Its my singular motive for even having a blog and commenting here. I dislike feeling as if because I am a Christian conservative I necessarily am a white knight……but more I marvel at the disconnect that simply sets aside tradcons, or makes blog hay from derision of same, ONLY to pick low hanging fruit yet ignore that once converted, as unlikely as that may be, that’s where the action MUST BE. My is that that is the only medium in which to work to even save one man and give him a red pill.

    Oh, the pro-life attempt to point out some type of hypocrisy is as much a stretch as the one where a liberal says “pro life shouldnt end after the baby is born and since tradcons are against government assistance they are hypocrites for being pro life. Sorry, your point is good and valid if you do not attempt that bad extrapolation. In fact it illustrates my point perfectly that to embrace red pill and conservatism means something personal and many are unwilling to self examine. I am no way anywhere that affords me any moral authority. That shouldn’t matter when there is the existence of objective truth.

  41. Zippy says:

    I’m just some guy who happens to be Catholic, and sometimes talks about Catholic stuff. I don’t represent the Catholic Church.

  42. Pingback: Biology Be Damned! Stop Generalizing! « 22to28 :: Don't screw up

  43. The Church doesn’t have to be infected with feminism and modernism. I don’t think it will be forever.

    This is an outstanding basic statement of the problem I’m rambling about.

  44. Zippy I never though you did.

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    ZippyCatholic, you insist on civility in some at your blog, but not all.

    Or to put it another way, all commenters at your blog are equal, but some are clearly more equal than others…

  46. Zippy says:

    Anonymous Reader:
    I can go on and on, and in every case, I cannot recall ever having seen a single posting, a single article, a single paragraph, no, not even a single simple line of text in which any of the people and/ or groups who insist they are “traditional” and “conservative” have one tiny peep to make, when it comes to men killing themselves as a result of divorce.

    Well, there is this post of mine seven years ago.

    [D: Yet when Chris mentioned it you rebuked him for not treating Lydia like a lady.]

  47. Johnycomelately says:

    Hooking up Smart, Zippy, Lydia…..when will it end Dalrock? Stop being so obstinate.

    Here’s an olive branch to Lydia, how about she guarantees her family home to her future son in law if her daughter seeks a no fault divorce down the track and all will be forgotten.

  48. Dalrock says:

    @Zippy

    The first complaint is that I gave a commenter too much free rein in attacking you, which is probably true by my own standards but nevertheless is more than a little ironic given how you run things here. Supposedly this is combined with me tying your hands by insisting (as I always do at my place) on civility. Precisely which comments of yours did I block or delete or even redact in that discussion? None. So if your hands were tied in terms of substantive engagement, it wasn’t by me.

    I’m not complaining that you didn’t enforce a standard of civility. I frankly don’t need that, and am able to handle uncivil commenters. What you did was something else entirely. You placed Lydia in a protected class, and intervened whenever anyone challenged the way she was derailing the discussion. You made the rules clear so you only had to intervene twice. You keep talking about your intent, as if that is what matters. This was your turf, and you made the rules clear. I came in after you had already done this, and was careful not to violate them. Chris’ comment was beyond the pale. So was the one pointing out that she wasn’t using facts, logic, and reason. So be it. Your house, your rules. But don’t pretend it was simply an error of omission. Lydia had protected status, up to and including deciding what you were and were not permitted to discuss on your own blog.

    The second complaint is that I won’t admit that my two recent posts are all about Dalrock. Er, OK. But they aren’t all about Dalrock.

    I’m saying be a man, and have the decency to name me when you are criticizing me like that. You linked to my post and referenced Lydia being right in her criticism of me, but then danced around the issue even after being confronted about it. It is plain and simply unmanly. Your argument that you weren’t only being unmanly towards me, but to others as well doesn’t make it better, and I can’t fathom why you believe it does.

  49. grey_whiskers says:

    @Brendon on December 30, 2012 at 6:35 PM
    (excerpt)
    Socons and trads may realize that their preferred social order is not returning soon, but they don’t want any *more* steps taken away from it, such as men abandoning chivalry wholesale. This leaves men in a very bad spot in the meantime — acting according to the rules of a social order which no longer exists, and in the context of one which actively punishes men who engage in this behavior in many cases — the socons and trads answer is generally “suck it up, man up, men must lead us out of this, etc.”, where the manosphere typically sees this as futile and instead adapts practical approaches that deal with the current system that is in place, whether they think it is a good one or not.
    One of the cures for this takes advantage of the recognition that the culture *is* the weighted sum of countless individual actions; which harden (in the individuals) into habits, and thence into charcter, and which harden (in the mass) into culture, and thence into norms.
    Part of the puzzlement is the result of “shock and awe” in which all of these changes have seemed to happen “so damn fast, out of NOWHERE” instead of realizing they have been part of a concerted effort by groups and forces opposed to traditional mores, combining fire for maximum effect, and sustained from multiple cultural reference points for a long time.
    The counterattack should be similar. Remember “consciousness-raising” from the 1960s?
    As far as the *form* of the counterattack, and the separation of the tradcons from the manosphere, that’s easy. Our problem is NOT chivalry–it is chivalry in the absence of femininity (for the ladies) and masculinity (for the men). Take a look at almost any movie in the black-and-white era, and most TV shows up until the mid-to-late 1960s. ALL of them not only exhibited — taking for granted — traditional gender *roles* (homemaker, nurse, librarian vs. businessman, construction worker, cop) but also tradition gender BEHAVIOUR — submission and deference and femininity by the woman, and masculinity (leadership, decisiveness, confidence) by the men.
    THAT, I deem, is the place to start: for true masculine confidence remains as catnip to women, as much as demureness is catnip to men: and no mere lecture by Harpie Hector can counteract it, as it is truly biologically determined.

  50. Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    You linked to my post and referenced Lydia being right in her criticism of me …

    You still don’t get it. It isn’t that Lydia was right about you personally. It is that she had a substantively legitimate concern about Christians engaging with the manosphere, which I talked about in my cynicism post, and which the flurry of stuff that followed your post validated.

    You not getting it doesn’t translate into me “dancing around the issue”. And it is up to you, but you should consider reserving the “be a man” chest thumping for your teenage readers who are impressed by it.

  51. Sharrukin says:

    Johnycomelately says:

    Hooking up Smart, Zippy, Lydia…..when will it end Dalrock? Stop being so obstinate.

    You forgot a legion of others. In fact there are thousands upon thousands who couldn’t care less what happens to men in this society, or are willing to subordinate their welfare for the sake of feminine wishes and desires.

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empathalogicalism:
    Anonymous reader, its a worthy question about when was the last time a tradcon took on suicide as you indicate. I have certainly done it, and a handful of others. I openly admitted the dearth of same among my handful.

    I did not know that you had done so, and I congratulate you for that. But truly, is it not a piece of a larger issue?

    Your question is both a good one and valid one, and yet one that greases skids for aggressive liberals to denounce what is good and true about traditional conservatism.

    Why should this matter? What do you care what aggressive liberals say? Either the suicide, the self-murder of divorced men is a terrible thing that needs to be aired, and talked about, and some steps taken to reduce, or it is not. If it is, then it is. The truth is true, regardless of who says it.

    Oh, the pro-life attempt to point out some type of hypocrisy is as much a stretch as the one where a liberal says “pro life shouldnt end after the baby is born and since tradcons are against government assistance they are hypocrites for being pro life. Sorry, your point is good and valid if you do not attempt that bad extrapolation.

    I do not agree, and here is why. If one claims to be “pro-life”, then logically one is opposed not just to abortion on demand, but also to infantcide, and murder in all forms including euthanasia of the “unfit”, the old, etc. Suicide is self-murder. To ignore self-murder is to ignore a category of murder, and therefore contradictory to any claim of being “pro-life”. Therefore it is incumbent to oppose suicide, and to be willing to do so in public. It is an established fact that divorced men are X times more likely to self murder than other men of the same age/income/education status. Therefore, divorce is clearly a factor in self-murder. Therefore, to remain silent on the issue of suicide by divorced men, while claiming to be “pro-life” is as self-contradictory as remaining silent on the issue of euthanasia of the elderly while claiming “pro-life” status.

    All this, of course, is based on the premise that men – even divorced men – are human beings.
    Not disposable fashion accessories, not sperm vending machines, not robots, not mules.
    Perhaps that accounts for the general silence, with a few (very few) exceptions?

    In fact it illustrates my point perfectly that to embrace red pill and conservatism means something personal and many are unwilling to self examine. I am no way anywhere that affords me any moral authority. That shouldn’t matter when there is the existence of objective truth.

    Most people are unwilling to engage in true self examination. It can be painful, and show us things that we did not want to know. However, those who claim superior moral authority should not be surprised if they are held to their own standards, surely?

    Now, is there an objective truth about murder? I believe that every person who calls him or her self “traditional conservative” would insist that there is. Yet there is silence about the suicide of divorced men. I”m aware that no one person or group can address all the ills of the world. I’m aware that different people have different issues or causes and so forth that they focus on. But off and on for a while now, I’ve been looking at “defense of marriage” sites, and traditional conservative sites, and I just don’t see any awareness, let alone concern, about the self-murder of men who are divorced. It’s just not apparently an issue that “pro-life” people care about, so far as I can tell. Am I missing something? Or is it just not important to the traditional conservative, that men being divorced by their wives are the most likely men in the US to blow their brains out?

    And if the self-murder of divorced men is not important to TradCons, why is that?

  53. TFH says:

    So this whole series of threads is about :

    1) Zippy wants to whiteknight Lydia, and demands that whiteknighting be seen as noble.
    2) Lydia wants to have a ‘let’s you and him fight’, and Zippy obediently obliges. We know why women do this. It is because Lydia is using Zippy as a utensil via which to test whether Lydia should be aroused by Dalrock (despite Lydia being married, as well as the object of her curiosity). This is female psychology 101, and exposes the moral emptiness of modern women.

    I mean, is there anything more to this than that?

  54. Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    [D: Yet when Chris mentioned it you rebuked him for not treating Lydia like a lady.]

    I’m not sure I get where the big crime happened. I made this comment in that thread after Chris posted the first time:

    “FYI, Lydia is Protestant, and will be treated like the lady she is.”

    The first bit was because he had assumed she was Catholic. At the time Chris was (from my POV) some random commenter who had come over from the manosphere, which was brand spanking new to me after a little bit of lurking, mostly here, and as far as I could tell was filled with a cesspool of commenters who are incapable of being civil and who litter the landscape with profanity, porn, and other jackassery. I was also vaguely aware that Lydia had had more encounters with the manosphere, because among other things I had been on sabbatical for quite some time from blogging. I later admitted that I jumped too soon and apologized to Chris. I’ve admitted that I may have been too one-sided in that first-encounter-with-the-sphere thread and apologized to you.

    I don’t get what else it would take to make you shake hands here. I’m not going to pretend that my latest posts are all about you, because they aren’t. I’m not going to pretend that my moderation is always perfectly objective and fair, because it isn’t.

    Frankly, I’ve always found the personalizing crap on the Internet a big annoyance. Why not just drink a scotch to each other’s health and get over it?

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous Reader:
    I can go on and on, and in every case, I cannot recall ever having seen a single posting, a single article, a single paragraph, no, not even a single simple line of text in which any of the people and/ or groups who insist they are “traditional” and “conservative” have one tiny peep to make, when it comes to men killing themselves as a result of divorce.

    ZippyCatholic
    Well, there is this post of mine seven years ago.

    I do not find the word “suicide” in the original article or in any comment that follows.
    Therefore, I do not find any text that even mentions men killing themselves as part of divorce., let alone objects to it, or expresses the slightest concern over it.

    Please point exactly to such text, or withdraw your assertion.

  56. [i]“as far as I could tell was filled with a cesspool of commenters who are incapable of being civil and who litter the landscape with profanity, porn, and other jackassery.”[/i]

    I should rename my blog A Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy. Matrix references are old hat.

  57. Vicomte says:

    It has become quite plain that the matter will not be settled through words alone.

    Gentlemen, choose your seconds.

  58. 22to28 says:

    @ gregariouswolf

    I don’t think you have much of a choice. You might as well be upfront and honest about it.

  59. dhurka says:

    @ anonymous reader and zippy

    I second anonymous reader here. While this post is a worthwhile anti divorce statement I can’t find any reference to the damage divorce does to men at all. In the current world divorce is set up to enable women to steal from, and destroy men. No one outside the manosphere cares in the slightest. This is why the manosphere is so judgmental towards women and tradcons. If that is the best you have written then it does not appear to me that you have addressed male concerns with marriage at all. It looks like a standard boilerplate disclaimer that even you admit is not practical. You will find that most here have no time to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am interested in practical solutions, which will necessarily involve offending the ladies.

  60. ybm says:

    Your crime Zippy, was showing up at Branch Davidian and telling Koresh he’s not the messiah.

    Sorry :(

  61. Sharrukin says:

    ybm says:

    Your crime Zippy, was showing up at Branch Davidian and telling Koresh he’s not the messiah.

    Oh please. Trying to represent Lydia’s ranting hysteria as logical, or Zippy’s defense of that as some sort of rational intervention is absurd.

  62. mikec74 says:

    Dalrock,

    I made my way over to Zippy’s blog and read some of the posts and comments. I guess I’m wondering why even engage these people?

    This Lydia sure is an interesting character. I really have no idea who she is, but she seems “important” over in those circles as some sort of deep thinker and philosopher. Reading her comments, she seemed to me like a self-important, pretentious, self-righteous know it all, and a sophist of the highest order. She seems obsessed with pornography as well. I get the sense the she sees it as adultery and any guy who has viewed even one clip of pornography is unfit to be a husband. This seems pretty wacky.

    I thought your analysis of the discussion dynamics was spot on right in terms of the frame and Lydia acting as the AMOG. Roissy’s maxim that the closer you get to the truth the louder the shrieking will be seemed particularly applicable to Zippy’s response and denial that he is Lydia’s white knight and/or bitch.

    I see no point in the exchange of ideas with these people. I think Rollo has it right, that in terms of the Red Pill, you reach the men you can, and leave the rest to their devices and or whatever happens.

  63. Anon123 says:

    Zippy’s passive-aggressiveness is just unsightly. Even after all these opportunities to just put an end to it, he refuses and still persists. Its downright pathetic.

    lol@YBM. I think you have this blog confused with Roissy’s.

  64. Frankly, I’m not that impressed by Zippy’s blog. Jail for adultery? Why don’t we lop off the hands of thieves while we’re at it.

  65. fedrz says:

    It amazes me that you are even entertaining this bullshit.

    Sunshine Mary just banned me for suggesting that talking endlessly about her panties and her sex life to men who are masturbating about getting just such a thing might ACTUALLY constitute a sin.

    Like I said, she banned me, rather than explore it.

    Go on exploring, you mighty gender warriors. And let me know how you have fared in 40 decades.

    I doubt you will have proven anything better than the generations before you.

    And don’t forget, good Christian ladies like Sunshine Mary are more than willing to oversee your viewing of “the real world.”

    And if you fall for it…

  66. Pingback: a cesspool of commenters who are incapable of being civil and who litter the landscape with profanity, porn, and other jackassery | A Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

  67. Dalrock says:

    @Zippy

    You still don’t get it. It isn’t that Lydia was right about you personally. It is that she had a substantively legitimate concern about Christians engaging with the manosphere, which I talked about in my cynicism post, and which the flurry of stuff that followed your post validated.

    The quotes you said Lydia was right on were specific to me, at least the first one was. Granted, one could read that comment as referring both to me and (per Lydia) men damaged by reading me. The second one was either regarding me or Chris, but both were in the context of Lydia attempting to discredit me. Again, these were early in her diatribe, and she was objecting to me personally and you referencing my post specifically. Add to this the link you pointed to as confirming Lydia as being right was another one of my posts. You are saying that my recent post confirmed Lydia’s past criticism of me. You can spin this as somehow not involving me, but it is insane. And even here, you have stated that you were in fact referring to me, with the stipulation that you weren’t only referring to me. So at best, you are saying it wasn’t just about me personally.

  68. Vicomte says:

    On another note, has anyone noticed, whenever there is any sort of significant ideological dustup around these parts, it’s always instigated by a woman?

    Or is it just me?

  69. Phong Tran says:

    Shaming and scaring bullshit. I need the bitter truth, not some comfortable civility to cover the lies. Take your darned civility and stuff it up the hole in your logic.

  70. mikec74 says:

    Dalrock,

    Not sure if you caught this post, but I think it basically sums up your interaction with Zippy and Lydia:

    http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/a-reader-teaches-some-aspects-of-game-to-men-in-his-church-and-now-faces-expulsion/

    “After years of this, it has been very difficult for me to attend church. Watching the rest of the world live on in the matrix and experiencing the vitriol they attack you with when you show them something beyond gets old after a while, especially when this happens to you in church. Churchians are, in many respects, the new breed of retard. Not only can they not use logic, not be introspective, not look beyond today, not question anything, but they don’t do all of this because “God” told them not to.

  71. freebird says:

    It’s true this site has damaged my brain with the truth.
    Care to make a settlement?
    I come pretty cheap these days..

  72. freebird says:

    Actually, If you would post *more* decent porn I would accept that as partial payment.
    Hehe.

  73. JHJ says:

    @FarmBoy:

    Indeed, Not All Catholics are Like That. But that’s rather beside the point, I’m afraid. All Christian churches are like that. So a few Protestants, a few Catholics and a few Orthodox individually are not steeped and marinated in tradcon whiteknightery, acting the useful idiots for feminism when they aren’t outright supplanting their professed faith with it. That’s impressive for the few people in question. But it certainly doesn’t help Christianity being in a terminal death spiral as a faith.

  74. Opus says:

    TFH (who in my alternative Honours List would certainly be receiving a gong this year for his considerable services to clear thinking) gets it right – as does Vicomte. Whatever the rights and wrongs – and clearly we will be here until Doomsday, or at least the end of the British Empire before the matter is settled – one thing is clear: as always, cherche la femme, which for those whose french is even worse than mine – look for the woman. This time Lydia, and let’s not forget Paul Elam and his floozy, – a dust-up over at The Spearhead – but more significantly, Skepchik. Recall the furious fight between Arch-Atheists, Dawkins and P.Z.Myers over Elevator Diva. She is nothing to look at, full of her own self-importance, and in my view exceptionally gullible on just about everything, yet even so, she corners vasts areas of the inter-web as a victim. I never thought one might suppose that Dalrock and Dawkins had much in common but they now do (I cast Zippy in the role of P.Z.).

    Now if I were the presiding Judge I’d dismiss the case and without any order for costs – but then again, it is not my court. I am presently working on my New Year’s Resolutions, and a renewed effort against the forces of Feminism and White-Knighting is high on the list of probable resolutions – both virtually and in reality.

  75. dorsey47 says:

    Lydia pointed out that women are a gift. Her own gift appears to have been a Trojan horse. However, Homer’s wisdom applied the original gift as a settling to the masculine dispute over a woman. This offering appears to be in use as an instigation. Alas, Helen had her beauty, what is a cyber-chic to do?

  76. Farm Boy says:

    Why don’t we lop off the hands of thieves while we’re at it.

    Well, it is cheaper than keeping them in prison.

  77. Farm Boy says:

    Lydia pointed out that women are a gift.

    Perhaps in the olden days. These days, not so much.

  78. Farm Boy says:

    I remember when Susan Walsh tried explaining her nonsense here, and ended up talking in circles. When the reality is on your side, you don’t need to spin.

  79. I saw what I needed to with the few exchanges I had. Strawman arguments, taking things out of context…like a woman

  80. greenlander says:

    I remember when Susan Walsh tried explaining her nonsense here

    They’re all the same. I’m amazed that our host is willing to engage these idiots with a serious expectation of an intellectually honest debate.

    It’s all much ado about nothing, anyways. Nothing will change until the unraveling of society is obvious. And even then, as TFH says, they will just double down on putting the screws to betas (which won’t work).

    I don’t care anymore. I expatriated. The western world can burn as long as it wants, and I’ll be just fine.

    I don’t care much about Lydia. Being a woman, she can’t escape her hamster. But I hope that guys like Zippy are the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Honestly though, it’s unlikely. It’s more likely that the bearers of actual truth will be the first against the wall, and that a dictatorship is the next step. As the famous Chinese curse goes, “may you live in interesting times…”

  81. Farm Boy says:

    Being a woman, she can’t escape her hamster

    My Mom grew up before feminism. She was taught to keep her hamster under control. It can be done.

  82. Farm Boy says:

    On another note, has anyone noticed, whenever there is any sort of significant ideological dustup around these parts, it’s always instigated by a woman?

    Or is it just me?

    No, it is not just you. The hamster must have its pound of flesh.

  83. Farm Boy says:

    I saw what I needed to with the few exchanges I had. Strawman arguments, taking things out of context…like a woman

    The first rule of dealing with women: when they are excited, don’t engage. Wait until they are calm. Learned that from Cesar Millan.

  84. Anonymous says:

    Off topic, but…

    Kim’s having Kanye’s baby and she’s not even divorced from Chris Knight yet… bet she sues Chris blind for child-support & half his money now.
    http://omg.yahoo.com/news/kim-kardashian-pregnant-kanye-wests-baby-061500009-us-weekly.html

  85. Fedrz, FWIW I agree with you about SSM:
    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/chauvinism/#comment-14179

    It’s apparent to me now that SSM is fishing in the same waters as Aunt Giggles (and employing the same policing of her blog), I half expect she’ll sign on with the BlogHer network and start carrying http://fem.mgid.com/ ads for site traffic before the end of January.

  86. Zippy’s conduct smells of a mealy-mouthed spineless pantywaist.

  87. Farm Boy says:

    @Rollo

    I don’t thinks SSM is like Susan Walsh. She is just being exposed to what it is like to be a typical guy (through the commenters), and it takes time to digest. Which is different than Susan Walsh’s, “let’s figure out how to continue to exploit the guys, even as things go downhill” approach.

  88. Anonymous Reader says:

    Someone I’m too lazy to look up wrote:
    Lydia pointed out that women are a gift.

    Farm Boy
    Perhaps in the olden days. These days, not so much.

    “Beware the geeks, bearing gifts”.
    “Never look a gift hearse in the mouth”.
    In German, the word “Gift” means “poison”.

    That’s enough obscure nonsense from me for now, I reckon.

  89. Farm Boy says:

    @zippy

    It is that she had a substantively legitimate concern about Christians engaging with the manosphere

    The Catholic Church’s position on natural world is that if one builds an effective model of it, then good for you. The only exception is the first few milliseconds of the big bang (a theory whose creation was very much underwritten by the Church). The manosphere is primarily about trying to figure out the real truth in relation to male and females. There is nothing un-Catholic about trying to do this. There are those that would use this knowledge for evil, but then, what knowledge cannot be put to evil usage?

  90. Farm Boy says:

    “Beware the geeks, bearing gifts”

    But they often do have a steady stream of income. Maybe chicks should not be so dismissive.

  91. Dalrock says:

    @ybm

    Your crime Zippy, was showing up at Branch Davidian and telling Koresh he’s not the messiah.

    Sorry :(

    Yup. I brook no dissent here.

    By the way, WordPress just gave me my annual blogging report and suggested I write you a thank you note for being one of the top 5 most frequent commenters on the blog in 2012 (with 745 comments). So thank you, and I’ll see you at the next compound meeting.

  92. Farm Boy says:

    “Beware the geeks, bearing gifts”

    There is the ultra-modern version,

    “Beware of Greeks bearing bonds”

  93. Farm Boy says:

    Your crime Zippy, was showing up at Branch Davidian and telling Koresh he’s not the messiah.

    So is Lydia playing the part of Janet Reno? So let’s “you and him fight”.

    And if she is playing that role — no pictures please. At least Janet Reno “took responsibility for the fiasco”, whatever “taking responsibility” means in that context.

  94. Dalrock says:

    @Farm Boy

    There is the ultra-modern version,

    “Beware of Greeks bearing bonds”

    There is also the new directive of the Greek revenue services, “Beware of Greeks with bearer bonds”.

  95. Mike T says:

    It was pretty obvious what Zippy meant when he said that Lydia was proven right–if you read what Zippy actually wrote. He said that the reactions of most of Dalrock’s commenters might give him pause as to what extent they proved her right about the manosphere leading men to bitterness and cynicism. In other words, it was a warning that many of you are treading close to living up to her accusation.

  96. anonymous says:

    I guess pick your favorite guy and escalate the drama!

    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” — Saul Alinsky

    Just sayin’….

  97. Mike T says:

    This Lydia sure is an interesting character. I really have no idea who she is, but she seems “important” over in those circles as some sort of deep thinker and philosopher. Reading her comments, she seemed to me like a self-important, pretentious, self-righteous know it all, and a sophist of the highest order. She seems obsessed with pornography as well. I get the sense the she sees it as adultery and any guy who has viewed even one clip of pornography is unfit to be a husband. This seems pretty wacky.

    I’m a reader of Dalrock, Roissy and Vox Day and am quite well acquainted with Lydia’s comments and writings, having read her main blog What’s Wrong With The World since about 2007. She’s a generally limited government social conservative writer who actually has more in common with the manosphere than most of you morons can appreciate. She is opposed to no fault divorce, generally has no use for family law courts (most social conservatives don’t!) and openly opposes letting women join many “men’s professions” like law enforcement or the military.

    But as we (and by “we” I mean “no one who knew she even existed prior to this but now knows her Internet persona like the back of their hand”) all know, when she isn’t indulging in the feminine imperative she’s squeezing Zippy by the balls.

  98. Feminist Hater says:

    My cynicism comes from experience, it does not come from the manosphere. It’s the bitterness and cynicism of dealing with modern women that lead me to pursue these types of blogs. Perhaps that’s where Lydia’s focus should be? Perhaps Lydia was ‘fascinated’ by our charm and couldn’t help herself getting wet by the dialogue.

    It’s okay Lydia, we understand.

  99. Dalrock says:

    @Mike T

    It was pretty obvious what Zippy meant when he said that Lydia was proven right–if you read what Zippy actually wrote. He said that the reactions of most of Dalrock’s commenters might give him pause as to what extent they proved her right about the manosphere leading men to bitterness and cynicism. In other words, it was a warning that many of you are treading close to living up to her accusation.

    Zippy has stated repeatedly that he was in fact referring to me (but not only to me), so your claim that he was referring solely to my commenters is factually false. Moreover, Zippy also acknowledges that the comments he quoted from Lydia were originally aimed at me. These comments were part of a string of accusations Lydia made that I personally (and those damaged by reading me) am psychologically damaged, can’t possibly love my wife, etc. Go back and read the comments thread he took the quotes from; you only have to look at the first few comments to see the context of the comments Zippy was quoting. Zippy can claim I have a thin skin and he really didn’t mean me when he referred to my recent post as proving someone criticizing me was right after all, but if you string these things together you get:

    Look! Dalrock just proved Lydia was right when she said such nasty things about him all those months ago.

  100. Farm Boy says:

    she’s squeezing Zippy by the balls.

    He seems to like it.

    proved her right about the manosphere leading men to bitterness and cynicism.

    This has been addressed before, but typically guys come to the manosphere after they have been through the grinder, which can make one cynical. But what exactly is wrong with cynical if it models the reality of the situation. The truth will set you free, and the manosphere has that in spades.

  101. Mr Green Man says:

    @Mike T
    I’m a reader of Dalrock, Roissy and Vox Day and am quite well acquainted with Lydia’s comments and writings, having read her main blog What’s Wrong With The World since about 2007. She’s a generally limited government social conservative writer who actually has more in common with the manosphere than most of you morons can appreciate. She is opposed to no fault divorce, generally has no use for family law courts (most social conservatives don’t!) and openly opposes letting women join many “men’s professions” like law enforcement or the military.

    Do you remember when Arianna Huffington was the doyenne of the Gingrich Republican Party, going out and speaking about limited government and balanced budgets and tax reform, and opposing all things liberal and Clintonian? These are the same people she trashes regularly now, right?

    You know, Paul had to have a conversation even with Peter once to set him straight when he went astray.

  102. Farm Boy says:

    @MikeT

    proved her right about the manosphere leading men to bitterness and cynicism.

    That is a strong statement, can you back that up (especially the “proved” part)?

  103. Mike T says:

    @Dalrock

    Zippy has stated repeatedly that he was in fact referring to me (but not only to me), so your claim that he was referring solely to my commenters is factually false.

    I scanned both his Cynicism and Cultural Marxist posts and couldn’t find anything that seemed to reasonably back up your assertion (as I understand it) that he is saying that Lydia was generally right about you versus being right that the manosphere has a habit of fostering cynicism. Can you link to the particular comments where you feel he does this to you? I can’t find them. If anything, one of his biggest replies to you made it clear that he is quite convinced that most of what Lydia said about you is obviously false and he apologized for letting her go as far as she didn’t without forcing her to back up her assertions with quotes.

  104. Farm Boy says:

    She is opposed to no fault divorce, generally has no use for family law courts (most social conservatives don’t!) and openly opposes letting women join many “men’s professions” like law enforcement or the military.

    That is all fine and good, and agree with these points in the general sense, but this is not the issue here.

  105. Mr Green Man says:

    @Mike T
    …and openly opposes letting women join many “men’s professions” like law enforcement or the military.

    That’s not entirely a green flag. One can get to that in two directions: One, believing in traditional gender roles, where one might also add various leadership positions — president, senator, representative, mayor, CEO, CFO, etc — to the list, or, two, believing that man is slave and servant to woman, and therefore he gets the crap jobs — policeman, fireman, infantryman, garbageman.

    Note that no woman has ever pitched a fit over not calling the sanitation engineer a “garbage person”.

  106. JHJ says:

    Does it matter? If reality warrants bitterness and cynicism, then only fools would try to avoid them.

    I mean, we are dealing with the sort of feminist snake oil saleswoman who is not ashamed to profess that men should not know the truth about women lest it make men more difficult marks for divorce rape. And we have her club of white knighting beta orbiters rushing out to the little “lady’s” defense.

    Of course, they use that favorite trick of the Alinskyite left to call all justified anger it disapproves with “bitterness” instead. But really – if this sort of people agreed with you, then you would be more justified in worrying.

  107. Farm Boy says:

    Of course, they use that favorite trick of the Alinskyite left to call all justified anger it disapproves with “bitterness” instead.

    And we are homophobic and have small penises also.

    Of course, even if it were true, it does nothing to truly advance the argument.

  108. Farm Boy says:

    Or is it “penii”?

  109. Dalrock says:

    @Mike T

    @Dalrock

    Zippy has stated repeatedly that he was in fact referring to me (but not only to me), so your claim that he was referring solely to my commenters is factually false.

    I scanned both his Cynicism and Cultural Marxist posts and couldn’t find anything that seemed to reasonably back up your assertion (as I understand it) that he is saying that Lydia was generally right about you versus being right that the manosphere has a habit of fostering cynicism. Can you link to the particular comments where you feel he does this to you? I can’t find them. If anything, one of his biggest replies to you made it clear that he is quite convinced that most of what Lydia said about you is obviously false and he apologized for letting her go as far as she didn’t without forcing her to back up her assertions with quotes.

    Yes, he still claims he only referred to Lydia’s comments as relating to the manosphere in general (when he used them in his post). However, he does acknowledge that in the original context the statements he quoted of Lydia were in fact aimed at me. He also acknowledges that it was my post (along with writings of others) which he was offering as proof that Lydia right; he was talking about me, but not only* me. So he quoted someone who was badmouthing me at the time, and pointed to my post as proof that what that person said was true. If Lydia had said all of these things about you, and then Zippy quoted them and pointed to your writings as proving her right, would you seriously think this wasn’t about you? This is asinine.

    *I remain baffled as to why his inclusion of others in addition to me should matter. Even so, I’m the only one who is specifically identifiable, he just didn’t use my name.

  110. Zippy says:

    Dalrock:

    Mike T understands my position correctly. The citations you are making don’t show what you think they show.

    I acknowledge that the quotations in my cynicism post were originally directed by Lydia at you. However, even to her, you were not the focus. (I say this confidently because I know her well, not because she is in any way interested in this whole discussion or has said anything to me about it). At issue to her was whether you were an exception to (what she understood to be) the phenomenon of the manosphere fostering an unreal, damaging cynicism in men.

    Whatever one thinks of the validity of those concerns is, of course, irrelevant to the he-said she-said thing you just can’t seem to let go here.

    Now I understand perfectly that you thought my posts were about you, and I understand why, and I’ve said as much. That’s my bad, and I apologized and offered you a beer.

    But I’ve clarified I don’t know how many times that they weren’t about you, and you just can’t seem to take that as an answer.

  111. I think the notion that the Manosphere leads men to cynicism and bitterness is putting the cart before the horse.

  112. Mike T says:

    @Farm Boy

    That is a strong statement, can you back that up (especially the “proved” part)?

    I didn’t make it nor do I stand by it, so the answer is “no.” I was referencing what others had written.

  113. Farm Boy says:

    The whole argument seems predicated on the fact that the manosphere fosters cynicism and bitterness. Since this is not really true, then everything after it falls apart.

  114. Feminist Hater says:

    Where’s Mark Driscoll when Lydia needs him?

  115. Feminist Hater says:

    Lydia: O Mark Driscoll, Mark Driscoll! Wherefore art thou Mark Driscoll?

  116. Anonymous Reader says:

    *I remain baffled as to why his inclusion of others in addition to me should matter. Even so, I’m the only one who is specifically identifiable, he just didn’t use my name.

    Plausible deniability, is one likely explanation. It’s typical of the passive/aggressive, or social-aggression mindset. Here, I’ll demonstrate:

    Schoolgirl 1 to schoolgirl 2 in the lunch room, just loud enough so schoolgirl 3 can hear her:
    “Well, I just don’t understand, like, why some girls wear such short skirts to school, it’s like the are sooo desperate for some boy to pay attention to them, they totally flash their thong in class!”.

    Schoolgirl 3 is the target. If she fails to respond, then the label of “desperate”, “no boy” and even “easy lay” may stick to her. If she does respond directly, then Schoolgirl 1 can burst into merry laughter and exclaim to schoolgirl 2 “Oh! She thought I was talking about her!” thereby further cementing the labels, while preserving deniability in the eyes of any observers. If schoolgirl 3 makes a bigger issue of it, then she will appear to be the aggressor, which is a standard tactic of the passive-aggressive way of fighting: pick a fight in an ambiguous manner, then pretend to be shocked, shocked that anyone could possibly misconstrue your words and get angry about them. This is, in my opinion, the foundation of the “Don’t Hit Me, I’m Just A Girl” ploy.

    The feminine personality is all about covert action and plausible deniability. Many, but not all, women have this personality feature, which may be under varying degrees of control. Most men do not have this feature, and therefore find it difficult to recognize, let alone understand.

    It is curious that so many men who claim to be traditional and conservative tend to use such elliptical feminine forms of argumentation, to be sure.

  117. Zippy says:

    Farm Boy:
    The whole argument seems predicated on the fact that the manosphere fosters cynicism and bitterness.

    That is what is substantively at issue, yes. Independent of whether it is true or not, though, my post wasn’t about Dalrock specifically.

  118. Farm Boy says:

    I think the notion that the Manosphere leads men to cynicism and bitterness is putting the cart before the horse.

    But you know that correlation equals causation, so if manosphere guys are cynical and bitter, then the manosphere caused it.

    Kind of like “Intelligent people make more money, so if everybody made more money, then intelligence would increase”

  119. Feminist Hater says:

    Kind of like “Intelligent people make more money, so if everybody made more money, then intelligence would increase”

    Kind of like believing that if the Manosphere just ‘shut up’ women would be virtuous and all would be good in the world.

  120. Farm Boy says:

    Where’s Mark Driscoll when Lydia needs him?

    Or Darwin Catholic?

  121. Sharrukin says:

    Farm Boy says:
    The whole argument seems predicated on the fact that the manosphere fosters cynicism and bitterness. Since this is not really true, then everything after it falls apart.

    Even if it does foster cynicism and bitterness, the question should be…is that cynicism warranted or not? That is what Lydia doesn’t care to address.

  122. Farm Boy says:

    Even if it does foster cynicism and bitterness, the question should be…is that cynicism warranted or not? That is what Lydia doesn’t care to address.

    Either way, let’s have a food fight to distract everybody.

    [D: May as well. This equine specimen has been dead for some time now. New post on the way.]

  123. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Plausible deniability, is one likely explanation. It’s typical of the passive/aggressive, or social-aggression mindset. Here, I’ll demonstrate:

    Schoolgirl 1 to schoolgirl 2 in the lunch room, just loud enough so schoolgirl 3 can hear her:
    “Well, I just don’t understand, like, why some girls wear such short skirts to school, it’s like the are sooo desperate for some boy to pay attention to them, they totally flash their thong in class!”.

    I can’t of course prove intent, but I would say that is an accurate characterization of how I perceived the Cynicism post. However, you would actually need to add another layer of passivity/deniability, which would make it:

    Now I think I understand what Sally meant when she said “some girls wear such short skirts to school, it’s like the are sooo desperate for some boy to pay attention to them, they totally flash their thong in class!”.

    While Sally in fact said this very thing about schoolgirl 3 to schoolgirl 1, it isn’t schoolgirl 1 but Sally who maligned schoolgirl 3 (schoolgirl 1 would never think of saying such a thing), as schoolgirl 1 was merely observing that the statement by Sally was true about girls in the school in general (including schoolgirl 3), although when pressed she does admit that Sally’s comment came to mind when looking at how schoolgirl 3 was dressed in the lunchroom.

  124. Amicus Curiae says:

    Here are my two cents on the topic, posted on Zippy’s site.

    I haven’t read the entirety of the comments, but i am curious if i am the only one to notice the irony of Lydia’s views on traditional pornography and its inherent dangers while lamenting the fact that one of Zippy’s premises was the danger of the prevelance of “divorce-porn” and the dangers inherent to immersing oneself in it?

    I also think this tempest in a tea pot was created as the “manoshpere”/”androsphere”/”MRM” etc. acts from an exclusively male viewpoint and address only that view point. it is unapologetically a resource to teach men (young and old) to be sceptical as all that glitters is not gold.

    Lydia frequently mentions that women have trouble finding suitable marriage material. And takes issue with the one-sidedness of the manosphere.

    While i can appreciate the need for an area to discuss issues relevant to both men and women, the one sided enclave, if you will, must come first. As stated by previous commentators, i implore anyone to point to a non-manosphere site, magazine, news article or anything else that attempts to inform men how to operate in either or both the sexual or marriage market place. The problem I have with comments by Lydia, and others on other blogs, is the failure to appreciate the foundational themes of many contributors to the manosphere. Specifically, it is generally understood by everyone reading, writing and commentating on the manosphere that good women exist or Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT). The thing missed by these individuals is few articles will have that in the opening as it is understood by the readership. the Major issue being addressed is that while NAWALT numerous women are like that.

    However you want to apportion fault to men and women seperately the fact of the matter is divorce rates are approximately 50%. The manosphere is attempting to show men that you need to actively protect yourself from that unholy fate. I come from a broken home, I know the 50% rate and even then I have problems identifying that as a possibility i must guard against. The manosphere exists to help men realize that can happen to me and if i dont look for the signs i may end up with a woman like that.

    i dont understand the aversion to MGTOW. While a healthy happy marriage to a marriage minded individual who does not see divorce as an option (except in the obvious extreme cases) is a wonderful thing full of god’s love, not all people are called to be married. While some might think it’s cavalier, I dont see the problem with men looking at the women they associate or interact with and saying it is not worth the effort or risk. There are consequences of divorce that will affect both husband and wife, however, a larger portion of consequences hit the husband. Referring back to Lydia and her statment that a women also destroys her life, this ignores the prevelance and affect of “divorce porn” on women. If we accept the presmise that regular pornography has negative effects on men, it is axiomatic that books like Eat, pray, love (and its film derivative) have negative effects on women. that they tell women that nuking the family will lead to bigger better things.

  125. Zippy says:

    This thread certainly shows the whole ‘metanarrative in the manosphere’ thing at work. Why talk to the person in front of you and absorb what he actually said when you can imagine that person as a schoolgirl and make up a pantomime in your head that is much more palatable to whatever conclusion it is that you want to draw?

  126. Anonymous Reader says:

    ZippyCatholic, since you are reading comments again, would you be so kind as to support an assertion made to me with some evidence? To save time and avoid a repost, I point to my comment:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/my-comment-to-zippy/#comment-65208

    It’s elementary debate. You made an assertion, I find no evidence to support your assertion.
    Please either support your assertion with specific evidence, or withdraw the assertion.

    Demonstrate your adherence to the standard rules of debate, and an interest in the truth.
    It is your choice.

  127. Zippy says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    You are the poster child for why the manosphere’s natural allies often walk away and shake the dust off their boots. I’ve been railing against no-fault divorce in harsh terms since before most of the manosphere was in diapers; but that just ain’t gonna move you a bit, is it?

  128. Farm Boy says:

    Guys, let’s agree to disagree

  129. sunshinemary says:

    AR, your comment at 2:17 is just brilliant. I remember those kinds of conversations from High School.

    The feminine personality is all about covert action and plausible deniability.

    In that case, both Rollo and Fedrz are a couple of d@mn fine women.

    What Rollo said: I had no idea who SSM was or that she’d even started a blog until she linked back to my posts being critical of the concept of the feminine imperative.

    What is actually true: Rollo and I have exchange a number of comments over the months here at Dalrock’s as well as on his own blog. As to being aware of my blog only last week – the fact that he dropped a link to one of my post here back in September exposes this as the lie that it is.

    What Fedrz said:

    Sunshine Mary just banned me for suggesting that talking endlessly about her panties and her sex life to men who are masturbating about getting just such a thing might ACTUALLY constitute a sin….she banned me, rather than explore it.

    What is actually true: The comments (still held in mod at my place) were laced with filthy language, sexual comments toward me, and vile insults toward my readers.

    Of course, I will no doubt be framed as the instigator and aggressor for pointing these facts out.

  130. Random Angeleno says:

    Lydia has written a number of thoughtful posts over at her blog. But as soon as one gets uncomfortably close regarding red pill issues, she becomes emotional, issues ad hominem attacks and refuses to give these issues the considerations that she had given other issues on her own blog. If that is not two-faced, I don’t know what is.

    Zippy now knows that there are kernels of truth in the manosphere. For instance, he was challenged on a previous Dalrock thread to begin acting like a typical Christian/Catholic blue pill man with his wife. He did not take up the challenge because he knew how it was going to go with his wife if he went there. So the basic knowledge is there in him. But at the same time, the knowledge has made him skittish and just plain uncomfortable when placed next to his Catholic faith. To the point where he allowed Lydia to stomp all over his comments and refuse any substantive discussion of the issues. To the point where he dismisses men’s bloggers as “cynical” and subject to “cultural marxism”. To the point where it doesn’t appear that he’s taking back “cynical” and “cultural marxist” about Dalrock himself. To the point where he still vacillates even today and so doesn’t represent a good example of a Catholic red pill man. Not to say he couldn’t become one, just to say he isn’t one now.

    @Zippy: if I may counsel you as a fellow Catholic myself, I do not see contradiction between knowing the base natures of women and men, and still keeping my faith. I certainly agree that the Catholic churches I have attended are considerably feminized but if one can step past that, there are still red pill kernels of truth in the Church. For instance, women are still not considered suitable for the ordained ministry and that isn’t changing anytime soon. Their spiritual study (and writing) must take place under the direction if not direct instruction from men, preferably the local bishop. Which is why the recent takedown of the American liberal nuns was proper and long overdue. If Lydia was a Catholic, she would most certainly chafe under such restrictions… But no she is a Protestant and feels free to write accordingly and does not suffer challenges to issues held too dearly to her.

    @Zippy: Paul knew and understood deeply the nature of men and women. That which he wrote in Eph 5:21-33 is eternal truth in 13 verses. He knew that women need to be led and through these verses provided the theological framework for male leadership of family. Something you have instinctively done in your own marriage. The toughest thing for many Christians including yourself is to understand what is it about men and women that would cause Paul to write as he did.

  131. Farm Boy says:

    @SSM

    Well, you were actually pretty direct there.

  132. Zippy says:

    Random Angelino:
    But at the same time, the knowledge has made [Zippy] skittish and just plain uncomfortable when placed next to his Catholic faith.

    You are trying to psychoanalyze me over the Internet there, and you are missing the mark.

  133. Anonymous Reader says:

    ZippyCatholic
    You are the poster child for why the manosphere’s natural allies often walk away and shake the dust off their boots. I’ve been railing against no-fault divorce in harsh terms since before most of the manosphere was in diapers; but that just ain’t gonna move you a bit, is it?

    ZippyCatholic chose to answer a question that I did not ask, rather than the question I did ask. This is typical of ZippyCatholic and others, and it is one reason why many more and more men find traditional conservatives to be unworthy of trust.

    For the third time: can you, ZippyCatholic support your claim with evidence, or withdraw it? Or are you exempt from the elementary rules of debate and reason?

    Here is the question that I am asking, that ZippyCatholic is busy evading:
    Why is it that traditional conservatives refuse to display the slightest concern over the very high rate of suicide of divorced men? I’m not asking if TradCons oppose divorce. I’m asking why they do not seem to have any problem with self-murder of men who are being divorced.

  134. Anonymous Reader says:

    ZippyCatholic
    This thread certainly shows the whole ‘metanarrative in the manosphere’ thing at work. Why talk to the person in front of you and absorb what he actually said when you can imagine that person as a schoolgirl and make up a pantomime in your head that is much more palatable to whatever conclusion it is that you want to draw?

    Why, ZippyCatholic, Dalrock and I are just having a theoretical conversation. We didn’t name any names, now did we?

    “It’s not all about you”, as someone recently wrote on this thread, ZippyCatholic.

    For some odd reason, I am reminded of the poet Burns:

    “O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as others see us!
    It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
    An’ foolish notion.”

  135. Martian Bachelor says:

    Anybody else remember the cover photo on Pink Floyd’s album “Wish You Were Here”?

    I’m having a WYWH moment.

  136. Art Deco says:

    This has gotten awfully involuted and unproductive. The trouble made reference to is not the only problem people have had with him.

    “Torequemada” ‘ s remarks (18 Sept. 2007):

    As a practical matter, neither Victor nor myself write that much about Zippy. No doubt that’s because (as in the case of Rod) we’re secretly in league with him and don’t want to expose the connection lest it harm the broader conspiracy. From my point of view, his level of personal arrogance and frequent declarations of his own correctness as a way of ending an argument tend to preclude him developing a broad following. To the extent that he is important, it is largely because Mark [Shea] tends to outsource most of the actual arguing for some of his claims to him. (Mark Shea was a prominent Catholic writer).

    Not much point in further use of pixels to attempt to get him to deal straight.

  137. Art Deco says:

    Why is it that traditional conservatives refuse to display the slightest concern over the very high rate of suicide of divorced men?

    You asked Zippy, but since I am in that genus, I will but in and answer on my own account. I am concerned about a great many things, I just do not often have the occasion to discuss some of then.

    Some of you have been quite rough with DarwinCatholic, which is regrettable because he is generally decent, conscientious, and forthright in discussions (no games). He offered a reply to me some time back that abuses in the family court system were not worth pondering or correcting because such proceedings were inherently unfair (and, apparently, one never approaches or recedes from any kind of standard of performance, I guess). That is the most maddening bit of quietism I have encountered in I do no know when, but I guess if life is good one does not have much incentive to consider the matter further.

  138. JHJ says:

    While I’m not impressed with what I’ve seen from Zippy here, let’s not be so categorical. Everybody can be wrong sometimes. The difference between men and women is that men can own up to that and learn occasionally. Zippy has apologized for his rampant white knighting of that Lydia woman. He’s even made it clear he wouldn’t have taken on Dalrock if he had thought about it, even if this has been an apology worthy of three hamsters.

    Zippy… here’s a plea. If you feel up to writing an article at your site about the current state of feminist subjugation of the Catholic church – is it worse? Is it better? Are there any signs that someone in the church hierarchy is actually not a member of the sisterhood in drag? I know I would be interested. I keep hearing about some disciplinary action against feminists in the guise of nuns? Is there a story in that? A Christian church that is trying to shake the “NOW with Bible hamster justification” ideology would be welcome news indeed.

  139. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous Reader:
    Why is it that traditional conservatives refuse to display the slightest concern over the very high rate of suicide of divorced men?

    Art Deco
    You asked Zippy, but since I am in that genus, I will but in and answer on my own account. I am concerned about a great many things, I just do not often have the occasion to discuss some of then.

    I already addressed that reply to some extent in this comment:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/my-comment-to-zippy/#comment-65183

    And I specifically addressed it in this comment in the last full paragraph:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/my-comment-to-zippy/#comment-65205

    If you would please read both of those comments, you would see a fuller exposition of my question (that ZippyCatholic refused to answer). With all respect, “I don’t have time” is not very convincing, because frankly it takes very little time to point out facts, in the context of any discussion of mens-fault divorce (“no fault” is not an accurate description any more).

    Art Deco
    Some of you have been quite rough with DarwinCatholic, which is regrettable because he is generally decent, conscientious, and forthright in discussions (no games).

    Again, with all respect, this comment is exactly the opposite of my admittedly limited experience with DarwinCatholic and his partner. I found him to be duplicitous, dishonest, evasive, passive-aggressive, not at all thoughtful, and very conspicuously a player of the “oh, when I use a word, it means what I want it to mean” games. I do not know why your experience is so different from mine, but as a result of my experience, I see no reason to expend any time or effort reading anything he writes. And yes, I meant “partner”, not “wife”. When a woman wears the pants, as Mrs. Darwin clearly seems to, she’s not a “wife”, she’s a “partner”.

    Art Deco
    He offered a reply to me some time back that abuses in the family court system were not worth pondering or correcting because such proceedings were inherently unfair (and, apparently, one never approaches or recedes from any kind of standard of performance, I guess). That is the most maddening bit of quietism I have encountered in I do no know when, but I guess if life is good one does not have much incentive to consider the matter further.

    That bit of information merely supports my impression of him. He simply doesn’t care. And this, in my observation, is typical of traditional conservatives when it comes to men in general, and especially men who have been or are being divorced.
    Now why does this matter?
    Permit me to quote myself from a while back on this blog, in a parable that I’ll attempt to recreate, since I am too lazy to go and search it up:

    “A married man fell into the hands of divorce lawyers and other thieves, and he was robbed, beaten and left by the side of the road. A feminist walked by, and seeing him, shouted ‘Sexist Pig! You got what you deserved!”, and after spitting on him, strode away. Later, an evangelist preacher came walking, and yelled at the man, waving his Bible, hollering, “If you had only been willing to Man UP, and love your wife as Jesus loves the church, you would not be in this sorry state! You need to learn some accountability!” and tossing a business card at him from a safe distance with the address and URL of Huge Megachurch to the man, the preacher left. A while later, a pair of married Traditional Conservatives walked up, and seeing the man in his dire straits, they took immediate action. They quickly walked way over to the other side of the road, as far away from the beaten, robbed man as they could get, and looked the other way from him, as they hurried to get to the Traditional Mass.

    Then the man decided to end his life, and taking a knife out of his pocket, he tried to work up the nerve to sever an artery. But just then, a man came along, in cheap clothes, his hands dirty with long hours of work, and seeing the man said in a calm, commanding voice, “Friend! Don’t do it! She’s not worth it. Really, she’s not. No woman is”. The man who had been beaten and robbed of everything he had worked for dropped the knife in surprise, and looked up, speechless. “Yeah.That’s right. I know what happened to you. Come on, let’s get you up out of this ditch, and cleaned up. There’s a coffee joint down the way, pretty good sandwiches. I know what happened to you, and what you can do about it. ”

    And the evil, misogynist, crude, despicable, disgusting, loathsome Men’s Rights Advocate took the divorce-raped man, and cared for him, when no one else would do a thing. ”

    What do you think, Art Deco, of my parable? Is it too subtle? Is the concept in the story one that no traditional conservative ever heard of before in their entire life, so they are unlikely to get the point?

  140. grey_whiskers says:

    @Farm Boy on December 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm
    Or, keeping in mind computer virii (plural of “virus”), it’s more like
    “beware of geeks bearing .gifs”

  141. grey_whiskers says:

    @Dalrock — (if somebody knows a way to get his attention more effectively than a post on a thread, let me know?) –

    I have written a rather long discussion of game with a number of links to influential blog posts, from an implicitly Christian perspective. Is there any way I could forward it to you privately for review?
    (I do not have a blog, nor am I seeking one; and if you read it, you would realize that it would not fit well on some of the other manosphere forums; still less on the political forums where I normally hang out.)

    Thanks, and best regards,
    g_w

    [D: I just sent you an email.]

  142. Art Deco says:

    Anonymous Reader, the following seems fair:

    1. I have been a participant in Catholic and ecumenical boards for about 10 years. Suicide simply is not a topic of discussion on these boards. There is no specific neglect of divorced fathers in this. No subset of suicide is a topic. It is not out of indifference (certainly I am not indifferent). It is just that people come together in these fora to hash out a different set of concerns. When I joined these boards, the big topic was sexual misbehavior by clerics (taking place roughly between 1930 and 1990 but exposed by recent court cases), liturgical abuse, and the relationship between Catholic profession and citizenship. Of course it is horrible when someone commits suicide. Of course the ruin of families is horrible. These are Catholic boards; this sort of thing would be taken as given by all but a modest (and irritating) subset.

    2. I’ve eight years or so of experience corresponding with DarwinCatholic. His discussion of this subject was not his finest hour. Believe me, he is modally an astute and temperate student of the passing scene, and straight from the shoulder.

    3. I do not have much insight into the marriages of people I have met in the flesh, much less only over the internet. Still, my gut suggests no criticism of MrsDarwin. I simply do not get the impression of her from her public writings that you do. She has been married 11 years, appended to her husband for about 14 years, has five children, and homeschools. She does not slice him up in print. What’s to take down?

    4. I would tend to agree with you that there is a systemic problem in evangelical circles and perhaps also in Catholic circles in diagnosing some of what ails us. I have had these discussions time and again over six years and there are some frustrating tendencies in these discussions. In general, I think only a modest minority of the young are receptive. The very real dilemmas that men in all ages face in attempting to navigate need to be acknowledged, and they are generally not. Sometimes, it is just in how the question is framed, but the ‘white knight’ problem is real.

  143. Anonymous Reader says:

    Art Deco, thank you for a thoughtful reply. I cannot reply at length, but do not wish to just say “thanks” and run away.

    1. I understand why this is, perhaps more than you might expect, as I have reason to believe that I know one of the victims of sexual predation. That said, the divorce rate for Catholics is about 30%, and that does not necessarily include annulments. I find it curious, given the fact that the US Bishops grant more annulments than the rest of the Catholic church combined, that there is no discussion. The Elusive Wapiti’s personal history of his wife divorcing him, and then using the divorce to obtain an annulment, is instructive in this regard. It looks a lot like “if we don’t notice it, then it isn’t really happening”, frankly.

    2. We’ll just have to disagree.

    3. Perhaps I am more aware of what feminine domination looks like than you, or perhaps I’m just overly sensitized to what I see as condescending manipulation of men by women. Or maybe it’s just a wrong impression on my part.

    4. This is the heart of the matter. With very few exceptions, these issues are discussed nowhere but in the androsphere. What men generally get from traditional conservatives is shaming language that tends to be very similar to feminist shaming language, and/or empty exhortations such as “Man Up”. There is no indication of even a clue of reality, and a lot of what can fairly be called the idol-worship of women. In my opinion, many traditional conservatives are at best making themselves irrelevant to men. But furthermore, thanks to the White Knight tendency to attempt to protect women from every danger, especially self-created, & thus all too often to defend the bad behavior of women at all costs, at worst traditional conservatives are becoming the enemies of men.

    Some men have long memories. They won’t forget the people who ignored them when they were hurting. Nor will some of them forget who chose to kick them when they were down. FYI.

    Hmm. Longer than I intended.

  144. Art Deco says:

    Just to point out, the book Man Up was written by Kay S. Hymowitz, a lapsed English teacher who somehow landed a sinecure at the Manhattan Institute. The Manhattan Institute is certainly friendly to social conservatives, but it is not a social conservative outfit (and I have no clue what they thought they were doing in hiring Hymowitz, she has no skills in social research). You might say it tends toward the dispensation in the Republican Party typified by James Q. Wilson among academics and Rudolph Giuliani among politicians.

    It have to disagree with you about characteristics of social conservative discourse I have seen. Some of it simply addresses young people as couples, is quite intent on the problem of chastity among the young (to the exclusion of other problems) and tends not to concern itself overmuch with the peculiar dilemmas young men face. Another problem you find is a tendency to discuss women as if they had no agency and with regard to whom the notion of accountability was non sequitur. That mentality is the default and people holding it have to be argued out of it. It is not so much misapplied protective behavior (and really, there is nothing wrong with banal chivalry) as a mentality which reflexively sees women as acted upon and not as actors. When challenged, some acknowledge that men and women form a dyad (and it’s really stupid to speak of women as of their general dispositions and behavior patterns are what they were in 1958). Some return with various evasions (that I have an ulterior self-justifying motive, or that we need to make the first move for social healing, or that we’re just not talking about that &c). As Chesterton says, it is what they take for granted.

  145. Phong Tran says:

    The tradcons don’t give a fuck about men’s sufferings. They only want to help perpetuate the slavery of men because modern women are inefficient slave owners.

    Mark my words.

  146. Dalrock says:

    Here is my most recent comment to Zippy at his site:

    Dalrock:

    I presume it is mutual that we are past the point where we might have a beer (or a scotch) and put all of this past us.

    Not from my POV. I’d buy you a beer tomorrow.

    I’ve given this a bit of thought and while we clearly don’t (and won’t) see eye to eye on this issue I’ve given it awful hard to you personally and you are responding here with a great deal of grace. You even offered again after I continued. That can’t have been easy and in my book is a very manly gesture.

    If you are still so inclined, I propose we agree to disagree on this issue, raise a virtual glass, and look forward to what we might learn from one another in the new year.

    My prayers are for the best for you and yours in 2013, and that God will bless you.

  147. Twenty says:

    I think a quick look at the Alexa stats will explain ZC’s “manliness”.

  148. Dalrock says:

    I’ve added a note to the top of this post and the previous one explaining that Zippy and I have agreed to disagree. I am also closing comments on both threads.

  149. Pingback: What we need is more chivalry! | Dalrock

Comments are closed.