Something smells fishy

The Other McCain Suspects a Moby was trolling Captain Capitalism’s post on Return of Kings, and I have no question his suspicion is right.  I noticed a surge of this same sort of thing after the nutjob omega in Santa Barbara went on his evil murderous rampage.

Check out McCain’s post A Moby in the ‘Manosphere’? for his description of the troll and the definition of the term “moby”.

Anyway, let this be a warning to the grassroots opposition to feminism: Keep your eyes open for similar dirty tricks.

This entry was posted in Feminists, Moby, Robert Stacy McCain, Troll. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Something smells fishy

  1. Interesting, I’ve had a definite uptick in possible ‘Mobys’ commenting on RM recently.

    They all basically parrot the same “you men are bitter losers who hate women” message. I’m getting these from commenters who never posted on my site even 2 months ago, and some as recently as my last post. Needless to say none of them are familiar with my work and their comments make it glaringly evident.

  2. Novaseeker says:

    That seems like an obvious false flag operation post. Too obvious to be effective, really, which is why it didn’t take ROK long to remove it.

    The effective way to false flag troll is to lead the main group of commenters in the venue (works equally well whether a right or left venue) to a slightly more radical place, and get them to agree and amplify. The point, of course, being to horrify mainstream readers. But the key is not being “so out there” that you’re outside the local mainstream that frequents the site. You have to be subtle, and if you are, you can really drag along a lot of people and cause proper mayhem. Looks like this case, by contrast, was an amateur job.

  3. Pingback: Something smells fishy | Neoreactive

  4. Earl says:

    I have to say, turn about is only fair play. The Left may have invented nihilistic sock puppeting and the agent provocateur. I merely perfected it and redeemed it for Jesus. I am not outraged to find them still doing it on MRA sites, although rather poorly.

  5. ianironwood says:

    Getting the same thing on my blog and on reddit. It looks like a self-appointed squad of dorkmasters purposefully trying to skew the conversation in dangerous ways . . . like trying to get me to endorse slapping a wife under the auspices of TRP.

    Be vigilant.

  6. feeriker says:

    That seems like an obvious false flag operation post. Too obvious to be effective, really, which is why it didn’t take ROK long to remove it.

    Yes. One thing that paid trolls, especially, all have in common is their absolute inability to leverage nuance or subtlety, leading them to almost immediately out themselves. Far from being disruptve, as is their (bosses’) goal, they’re generally just amusing mild annoyances. Then again, considering who employs them, their lack of skill (and intelligence) isn’t the least bit surprising.

  7. @Rollo Tomassi

    You can’t be a “Moby” if you’re commenting under your real name.

    I read a lot of blogs as a blogger myself (on my own blog, Stupid Girl, and also for the Los Angeles Times and the Independent Women’s Forum), but I seldom comment.

    But whenever I do comment, I ALWAYS use my own name, never a pseudonym. I don’t hide behind fake names unlike most commenters, and I stand by every single thing I write. And anyone who reads what I’ve written can google my name and find out exactly what else I stand for and have stood for over the years, since I’ve written for a huge range of publications. Since I don’t use obscenities and I try to respect my opponents (although I sometimes find their views ridiculous), I have nothing to be ashamed of.

    Yesterday I made a rare comment (perhaps the second one ever for that site) on a thread of Rollo’s coming to the defense of a woman–another anti-feminist, just like me–who had taken issue with what she perceived–quite accurately, in my opinion–as a hatred and resentment of women. You can’t believe the vile names she was called by other commenters on the thread, all pseudonymous. So I jumped in and pointed out that this was the mirror image of feminist commentary and its hatred and resentment of men–coupled with victimological whining.

    I pointed out that one commenter in particular (who had covered all the bases in the four-letter-word department attacking the woman), was unusually “bitter.” Woo! I’m still being attacked over on that thread! One commenter even speculated about sexual activities involving me and my husband. Nice! I’m told that I deserve to be treated this way because “depedestalizing.” I can take this kind of verbal garbage because I get it all the time from feminists who don’t like what I write, but really….

    So I think that Rollo is referring to me (because I did use the very word “bitter”) in his comment above, along with the female commenter on his site whom I defended. Sorry, Rollo, I’ve been reading you for years, and I’m quite familiar with your views. And I’m me, I regret to say. Just plain me.

    And I hate to say this, but the remarks of that suspected Moby of Stacy McCain’s didn’t sound too unlike a goodly number of Rollo’s commenters. Go over there and find out for yourselves.

  8. John Nesteutes says:

    There are those amongst us who hold such ridiculous views that it is difficult to distinguish them from trolls.

    The solution is to refuse to play the left’s guilt-by-association game, and also to refuse to take those with ridiculous opinions seriously.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    I have to say, turn about is only fair play. The Left may have invented nihilistic sock puppeting and the agent provocateur. I merely perfected it and redeemed it for Jesus. I am not outraged to find them still doing it on MRA sites, although rather poorly.

    Why? If you have to pretend to be the other side to make it seem like they are saying what you wish they were saying, this is an admission that they aren’t what you want to accuse them of being.

  10. Dalrock says:

    @John Nesteutes

    There are those amongst us who hold such ridiculous views that it is difficult to distinguish them from trolls.

    If by “amongst us” you mean “on the internet”, then yes. Any sort of nutjob you can imagine, and then some, exist.

  11. DeNihilist says:

    Charlotte, you say you have been in the game for years, if so, you know that there is more chaff then wheat when it comes to blogs. But in defence of some of these gents, they have had their lives ripped apart by their female partners and are still in the spiral (my brother has been in this cyclone for 3 years now and is just now, maybe, seeing some semblance of balance).

    As Rollo states, and as far as I have witnessed, men love romantically, whilst a lot of women love practically. It fucking hurts like nothing else when the woman you have left all others for, decides that YOU were a mistake.

    Give most of these guys a bit of room and time, and they will find themselves and come out of the whirlwind stronger and smarter.

  12. John Nesteutes says:

    @DeNihilist

    Something that it took me a long time to accept, but that I respect, about the way the Reddit TRP guys run things is that they let men simply live out the anger phase, instead of making rules to suppress it.

    Women hate hate hate the anger phase.

  13. John Nesteutes says:

    @Dalrock

    Some of the troublesome notions are “women have no moral agency”, “women can’t be born again Christians set free from the power of sin, in our modern culture and society”, and “men need to just get surrogates”.

    I assume you delete the comments from the guys who advocate wife beating, etc

  14. Hugh Mann says:

    @John Nesteutes – “some of the troublesome notions are “women have no moral agency””.

    That’s troublesome right enough, but is it a notion born of revolting theory, or an observation of revolting fact ?

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    John Nesteutes, perhaps women hate and fear men’s anger because we are more difficult for them to control when we are angry. There are various approaches they can and do take with angry men, often beginning with various forms of shaming language, or snark such as “u mad, bro?” passive-aggressive games. The interesting thing is how difficult it is for women to just leave men alone.

    The various feminists, from radical to conservative, who have parachuted into Rollo’s Rational Male blog over the years have all had that insistent, “got to tell you guys what to do for your own good” desire to manipulate, aggravate and control men. It’s funny how the fish just can’t seem to leave the bicycles alone.

    That all leaves aside the usual Moby style trolling that seems to come and go in cycles on various androsphere sites.

  16. John Nesteutes says:

    @Hugh Mann

    I’m a Christian, so I believe in a Christian philosophy of moral agency and good and evil: all humans are created with the ability to choose between good and evil, and all humans are responsible for when they make evil choices. We call that “sin”. Women are capable of sin. Both men and women are in need of a saviour to both deliver them from chronic sin on this earth, and to redeem them from the eternal punishment they will get for their sin in the next life.

    @Anonymous Reader

    Women sure get interested in joining any boys-only club they can find. Sorry, ladies, but it’s just a bunch of us neckbeard losers over here, sitting around being angry.

  17. theasdgamer says:

    @ Charlotte

    You can’t be a “Moby” if you’re commenting under your real name.

    Moby, moby not. Heh.

  18. @DeNihilist

    I’m all sympathy–divorce is really awful. It’s like death. It’s never very nice. It also brings out the very worst in people.

    @John Nesteutes

    I’m with you all the way. Both men and women have moral agency and free will–and they both have moral responsibility for their actions. When Jesus told people not to fornicate, he didn’t say women shouldn’t fornicate, but it’s OK for men–or vice versa. Both men and women share a flawed human nature, each in his or her own way.

  19. John Nesteutes says:

    Meanwhile on Twitter, the latest thing is that conferences should ban alcohol.

    “Conferences serving alcohol during the talks are disrespectful towards the speakers and perpetuating unsafe environment.” https://twitter.com/fox/status/603233892246679552

    “@AdamRackis I believe conf social hours can be done without drinking. You can always go to a bar afterwards with a group if you chose to.” https://twitter.com/SaltineJustine/status/603610565433495552

    “Don’t jeopardize the happiness of most of your attendees for the party/fun aspect. It’s a conference, not your 21st birthday at the pub.” https://twitter.com/SaltineJustine/status/603582247527174144

    Perhaps next feminists will try prohibition.

  20. pukeko60 says:

    Everyone has moral agency.
    The trouble is that our society has decided that certain groups are victisms and does not ascribe to them moral agency, instead placing it on non-vicitms.
    And people who have never been held accountable go feral.

    @Charlotte: consider if women routinely lost their children in divorce and then had to pay a swingeing support system that attributed a certain income to them — even while the same court the ability to earn that income away by disbarring or delicencing the same man. And then consider what would happen if the jails were full of women who could nto pay child support to their ex husband.

    Women would, rightly, be angry. Incandescently so. For it would be unjust.

    But I have just described the family courts. I’m our of the system now for about five years, and have almost finished raising the kids. Did OK. But I live not in the USA or Canada. I have seen the Canadian system, and it needs not reform, but destruction, root and branch,

    If and when women go through the grinder, things will change. Until then, we have a high suicide rate among men, and call this good.

  21. crimsonviceroy says:

    Not unlike how RPW’s love to invade men’s forums and subtly agree with everything, and then start taking hold of the conversation and derailing it or robbing it of its momentum through personal anecdotes instead of sticking to facts and stats. RPW’s or “Honey Badger’s” or whatever you call should have been called out for the trolls they were a long time ago. This is the reason why they hate MGTOW so much..because it doesn’t fit their narrative of abuse or violence. It is as non-violent as you can get because it admonishes men to let women be and to their own devices by shaking the dust of their feet and moving on with life. Any place that is infiltrated by these RPW’s will begin to show anti-MGTOW sentiments, such as A Voice for Men, which is now mostly moderated by women. The only way MGTOW’s can even remotely be criticized for harassing or threatening behaviors is because they are (CORRECTLY) critiquing the vast majority of female behavior (which is backed up by volumes of statistics and news coverage). But leave it to most women in positions of any sort of dialogue-based limelight to assert their will over others and call this “hate”.

  22. John Nesteutes says:

    @crimsonviceroy, ROK made a sound decision to restrict its commentariat to male-only. On Reddit they just ghettoised the RPWs into their own forum (and they seem to have a nice time over there, but that’s really mostly because of a few good mods).

    Women have a lot less to lose by advocating for Red Pill positions, and hence why we see them using their real names.

    I see no reason any of us here need to link our real names and reputations. We are here to discuss and debate ideas, without the distraction of our personality. Women aren’t able to think this way. For them, everything is about relationship, and also about having a nuclear option to personally destroy their ideological opponents, if it comes to that.

    I strongly disagree with a few people here, but I care not to destroy them or ever figure out who they are. If we encounter each other in real life, we’ll probably be friends. Men are pretty good at that.

    I suspect women of all wanting to secretly kill each other.

  23. Regular Guy says:

    @ Charlotte Allen

    Lo and Behold! Yet another woman comes to these forums to triangulate, manipulate and NAWALT! Color me unsurprised. Here’s a hint, if you feel you must NAWALT! you’re doing it wrong.

    It’s times like this, I can appreciate why Cane Caldo put an end to this on his blog.

  24. Opus says:

    There are a number of reasons (John Nesteutes give at least one) why it is wise – especially for male commenters – to use a pseudonym. Charlotte Allen comes here to lecture us about that and various other matters and thus makes the thread all about herself.

  25. @Charlotte, puhleez,…

    You jumped in to defend insanitybites by parroting the exact same crap that both Dalrock and Vox banned her from their comments for.

    I’ll tell you exactly what I told her:

    Dal and Vox were right to ban her, but other than blatant spammers I don’t do that. That said if the language my readers use steps on your precious sensibilities you can go elsewhere.

    What troubles you is the unvarnished truth; the truth that some men need to pass through that anger phase. You don’t consider that because you’re a mewling quim who’s so solipsistically ego-invested in her feminine-defined reality that the concept of men having any individuated existence is never even an afterthought to you.

    You’re have no consideration or inkling of the male experience is only matched by your lack of any critical curiosity about it. You see, anger for women is exalted; a transformational experience even your so called Christian sisters embrace with gusto:

    http://www.eewc.com/viewpoint/transformative-anger/

    But men’s anger frightens you, not because men are scary, but because men’s anger is offensive to a feminine defined notion that men have it all made.

    Men shouldn’t have anything to ever be angry about because to the feminine conditioned mind it comes of as childish, vindictive, bitter – really everything opposite of the transitional anger women should be empowered by.

    Angry men steal and corrupt the righteous anger only women should be justifiably entitled to.

  26. Regular Guy says:

    @ John Nestuetes

    “Perhaps next feminists will try prohibition.”

    The neurotic, insecure nature of Godless women see men’s happiness as a personal attack. The spirit of a woman’s self-centered disquiet can never be appeased by the things of this world, which is why worldly women are a bane to a man’s existence. Isaiah 3:12 “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

    Prohibition, no smoking… it’s simply won’t stop there.

  27. crimsonviceroy says:

    I will repeat here what I had said on Unmasking Feminism when it comes to divulging personal details and revealing actual names:

    “To use an alias and a non-selfie picture is the measure of someone who values their privacy insofar as it allows them to operate solely on the merit of their arguments and counterarguments without getting into the minutiae of personal details. Outside of a few circumstances, personal details don’t really add much to conversations that are focused on general trends in society as well as statistics as anecdotal evidence is very much subjective and really doesn’t offer much to drawing practical conclusions the readership can use in their own life to make better decisions or to stay informed. Perhaps it works in the “chatty Cathy” corner of the Internet, but then be there and have at it. Invading spaces like these and discussing personal matters, ESPECIALLY sexual matters (and this not only applies to those “sexy submissive wives” but also to those “alpha husbands/boyfriends/player’s”), derails the conversation, saps robust dialogue’s of their intellectual momentum, and turns the entire thread and soon enough an entire blog into a horrible mutation between the Vagina Monologues and Hustler magazine articles.

    Personally, I have to keep my privacy secure and set up protective countermeasures because of my line of work. Maintaining a minimal Internet presence insofar as how “out there” you place yourself has lasting implications in the real world. I guess that’s the benefit that those “sexy submissive wives” have is that they have the time and security of their home to flaunt about. Not, of course, knowing that intrepid and critical thinking minds that are sick and tired of the RPW baloney can easily connect-the-dots and find out who they really are, where they are, and the real truth about their “dreamy dominant-masculine-frame” husbands. It’s common sense folks. Whatever you put out there will come back and bite you on the ass, so try not to be brazen about it.”

  28. crimsonviceroy says:

    In the end, if you want to be a media whore, then by all means, put as many Instagram selfie pictures as you can as well as your real name and every drop of intimate personal details you want. There are folks like Black Pill on his blog (https://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/) that I have come to know and respect so well through his writings that I don’t need a picture or personal details to tell me of his character. It comes out in his writings. The same with all of the famous authors that we have come to know and love. Heck, there are people, like Dr. Suess and Mark Twain that even came up with fake names or ghost names cause they didn’t want all the attention but still wanted to make sure that there was a name associated with their work. There are authors that I’ve read from 17-19th century from Romanticism to Realism, whose pictures and personal bio’s I don’t even know. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that someone like Geoffrey Chaucer lived a very diverse and full life and was someone who had a profound respect and understanding of people from all walks of life as displayed in his prolific writing in Canterbury Tales. I’m pretty sure those authors let their stories and thoughts share more about them then personal interviews, Oprah specials, Barnes and Noble book-signing, and Instagram fashionista fandom. In the blogging world, let your thoughts stand on their own merit in the free marketplace of ideas. Just like anything, build your brand from thoughts, facts, conclusions, and even advice without relegating to the personal. People will know enough about you in such a context that you won’t need those personal details or anecdotes or even actual names to prove anything to anyone..your writing will have done that on its own.

  29. Sean says:

    Anybody that sticks up for insanitybytes/yttik/GG is either too new to make comments or is a member of Team Woman sticking up for someone with a vajayjay.

  30. anonymous_ng says:

    Ran across this one on the NYT today from a couple weeks ago. The executive summary is that folks in the big city get married less, and they’re Democrats too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/15/upshot/the-places-that-discourage-marriage-most.html?abt=0002&abg=0

  31. On /r/marriedredpill, when we first started to get some traction early this year we were overwhelmed with a surge of this type of Troll from The Blue Pill Reddit. We managed to get on top of it and we are growing so quickly it is hard to tell if there has been a recent increase in “Moby’s” or what we call “Blue Pill Concern Trolls.” They have been, and remain our primary concern as moderators. The interesting thing is how the Troll stench usually becomes obvious so quickly. These people just can’t help themselves.

  32. @Rollo Tomassi

    I’m not frightened of men’s anger, especially the anger of men hiding behind fake names. I’ve lived among men all my life (father, two brothers, husband). I just consider it ridiculous that the guys on your site–including you–seem to regard the “anger” phase as perpetual–and also justifying an endless series of obscenities (“quim,” huh?) directed at women. And I see that even your friend Roosh has decided you guys are too much–nursing lifelong grudges, whining and complaining–instead of acting like men. How about some of you move to the “bargaining” phase or whatever’s supposed to be next? As Roosh says, how about some genuine masculinity?

  33. @Regular Guy
    What’s NAWALT?

  34. Opus says:

    … and now the shaming starts.

  35. See that’s just it, no one’s proposing it’s perpetual. You’d know that if you’d read the links I supplied you to post I wrote years ago.

    Since you can’t be bothered to do that, all your criticism will sound the same because it’s all you have to fallback on. What you’re essentially saying is that you’re either too stupid, too lazy or too intimidated by a challenge to your ego-investments to educate yourself.

  36. And I see that even your friend Roosh has decided you guys are too much–nursing lifelong grudges, whining and complaining–instead of acting like men. How about some of you move to the “bargaining” phase or whatever’s supposed to be next? As Roosh says, how about some genuine masculinity?

    And there’s the confirmation that you’re a troll. Your blog reads like a poor imitation of the old Return of Queens so it’s no surprise you’re shilling for Retromasculinity.

  37. Haha, this is good! It means material here is getting noticed. And the ladies can’t take it, they must shame. It’s all they know how to do. Just don’t take the bait.

  38. Regular Guy says:

    @ Charlotte Allen

    LOL, now you’re just trolling. I’m done with you.

  39. @Regular Guy

    That’s like saying, “You can’t quit; you’re fired.”

    “I’m done with you”? I didn’t even know we had a thing!

  40. >You can’t believe the vile names she was called by other commenters on the thread, all pseudonymous.

    OH WAAAAAA! This bitch came onto a male site telling us we are all a bunch of uneducated neckbeards who hate women. She had read nothing, learned nothing, understood nothing, and we told her to fuck off. Ditto for you lady. If you don’t like it STAY OUT OF MALE PLACES. Read and lurk but nobody wants to hear your bullshit. We have heard it all before and you make a fool of yourself and piss everybody off.

    >@Nuestes: “Some of the troublesome notions are “women have no moral agency”, “women can’t be born again Christians set free from the power of sin, in our modern culture and society”, and “men need to just get surrogates”. I assume you delete the comments from the guys who advocate wife beating, etc”

    You missed that women are children who should be treated like rebellious teenagers or is that one a bit close to home?

    On deleting comments, I assume you have no idea what you are talking about. Dalrock probably does delete those BECAUSE THEY NEVER HAPPEN UNLESS IT IS A MOBY. Spanking women, now I could get behind that- but beating the crap out of them, not so much. Normal men have a strong genetic aversion to beating women or else it would happen a fuck ton of a lot more than it does now.

    Women DO NOT have moral agency. Society has all but removed it from them. Women get all the perks of being a man- and all the perks of being a woman. They get to decide whether to work or not. My body my choice. They decide when, how or if the trapped pet of a man they keep is going to have sex. The man has NO say. They decide if a baby is born. The man has NO say. They decide if you are going to stay married and file 80% of divorces, mostly because they are “not happy.” They get ridiculously favorable rulings in divorce court. They decide if the man even gets to see his own children. They manufacture false domestic violence or child abuse charges in almost 50% of divorces.

    At the same time, they have no responsibility in this society. It is “Ladies First” and special perks for women while they are 62% of new college students. If a woman is angry or hysterical and out of control like a 5 year old well, it is just PMS, deal with it. A woman can smash a glass on her husbands face, leave embedded shards and blood on that face and then call the police. They come and arrest the man! Then she lies under oath to exonerate her husband and is NEVER charged with lying to police or filing a false report or perjuring herself. Never ever ever. NEVER. Yet it happens in about 90% of so called “Domestic Violence” cases.

    Speaking of 90%, over 90% of so called “Amber Alerts” are men who have overstayed their time with their own kids. .1% of “Amber Alerts” (1/10 of a percent) are the woman who has overstayed her time with the kid. Translation: An Amber Alert is 900 times more likely to be called if it is a father than with a mother. Hmmm. Oh, and roughly 1% of nationwide Amber Alerts are actually genuine cases of child abduction (the rest being runaways, mistaken communications, lost kids, etc).

    If a 26 year old man fucks a 16 year old girl he is a “pedophile” but if a 38 year old women fucks a 12 year old BOY- well, HE MADE HER DO IT and she must have ben “abused.” See how that works?

    All the benefits, NONE of the responsibility and NONE of the moral agency.

    Who ever wrote that women can’t be Christians? My wife is an exceptional Christian and a woman of God, most of the time anyway.

    And “surrogates” is “troubling.” I just bet that it is. Anything that takes power from the pussy causes a disturbance in the force. Well get ready lady, cuz men are wising up to the game and your little disturbance is about to become as large of a gaping wound as you have left on all the divorced, dumped, cheated on, mistreated, and legally discriminated against men over the last 30 years or so. Them chickens are cummin home ta roost.

  41. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m not frightened of men’s anger, especially the anger of men hiding behind fake names. I’ve lived among men all my life (father, two brothers, husband).

    Attempts to establish hierarchy by proxy: “My men are Real Men!”

    I just consider it ridiculous that the guys on your site–including you–seem to regard the “anger” phase as perpetual

    Attempt to discredit men’s anger…

    –and also justifying an endless series of obscenities (“quim,” huh?) directed at women.

    …and to police men’s language.

    And I see that even your friend Roosh has decided you guys are too much–nursing lifelong grudges, whining and complaining

    Attempt at Disqualify via the usual female “your friends don’t like you” method…

    –instead of acting like men.

    Demands that men should act as women want them to, i.e. “Man Up”.

    How about some of you move to the “bargaining” phase or whatever’s supposed to be next? As Roosh says, how about some genuine masculinity?

    Another conservative feminist heard from. The sort who strolls into a male domain and demands that all thinking henceforth be changed to meet feminine expectations. Allies herself with “insanitybytes” aka “yittk” and some other handles against men because of the known 4:1 ingroup preference women have, aka “the herd vs. the world”. Now attempting to shame Rollo here because it’s perhaps too painful to expose herself to the angry man at Rational Male? Who knows?

    Charlotte, if you actually had been paying attention to Rollo’s site for, oh, a year, you’d have noted that there is turnover in commenters. Some men are angry longer than others, maybe some won’t ever get over it – they don’t need your approval for their emotions, you know, they own those even when you don’t approve of them. But with time, and careful reading, one can see some men begin to comment very hotly on Rational Male, and over the course of months, or even years, come to more understanding of the truth of women vs. the lies, and in time they either change their style, or they just don’t post much.

    What a superficial observer who doesn’t pay attention sees as “perpetual anger” is actually an ongoing wave of man after man discovering the androsphere, often only after something ugly happens in his life; charging into the comments sections of sites, arguing fiercely and incandescently about the inequities forced upon him just for having the “wrong” chromosome, working his way through it, and then moving on.

    As the truth about you and your sisters, Charlotte, continues to spread the number of angry men continues to increase; for every man who comes to terms and moves on, two or more come to take his place. If this bothers you, good. It should. Because condescending women like you are part of the problem.

    One way to learn about men beyond your family, Charlotte, would be to actually read and pay attention to sites such as this, Rational Male, Return of Kings, and others – but to never comment. To listen and not talk. To never talk down to men, or attempt to shame them into serving women, but to just pay attention to what they are saying, and how they are saying it.

    In other words, if you want to learn: Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte.

  42. From Bitter Misogynists (Oct. 2011):
    http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/25/bitter-misogynists/

    One of the surest indicators of an AFC-beta mindset is the automatic presumption that anything remotely critical a man would say about women, or the feminine, is by default, equated with misogyny. All a man need do is open his mouth, in the most objective way he can muster, about anything critical of the feminine and he’s instantly suspect of sour grapes. He must’ve been burned, or is bitter and on the verge of desperation just for even a passing mention of some critical observation of women’s incongruent behaviors.

    What an amazingly potent social convention that is – when a man will censor himself because of it on his own. The most successful social conventions are ones in which the subject willingly sublimates his own interests, discourages questioning it, and predisposes that person to encourage others to participate in it.

    “You’re just bitter because you got burned by some bitch in the past and your misogynist ideology is just your way of lashing out.”

    I hear this a lot from both men and women. It’s an easy response to parrot and it’s very useful. It foists the responsibility of confronting one’s critical ideas back on the man, all while shaming him for forming an ideology based on what he (and now a community of many other men) confirms by observations. It’s like a JBY (just be yourself) response; it sounds right, everyone uses it to the point of cliché, and it misdirects and discourages any further critical analysis.

    This is a feminine social convention that’s in the same vein as shame. Any guy that has a point about the feminine, no matter how valid, can always have his argument poisoned because he’s a guy, and most guys are frustrated that they aren’t getting laid, and this is his petty way of venting. When men can be convinced to participate in women’s social conventions half their work is done for them. In presuming a default state of male misogyny, it implicitly denotes a default state of ‘correctness’ or blamelessness of the female. In other words, you’re guilty and must prove innocence.

    […]The problem I think most people have with the tone of what Game has, or is evolving into is that essentially Game is a masculine response to what feminism (really feminization) has evolved into.While I can empathize with the feeling that Game can assume a plaintive tone at some blogs – particularly MRA oriented ones – contemporary Game is really a countermeasure to the social conditions feminist ideology has embedded in our culture for the past 50+ years. However, the social framework has been established as such that even my pointing this out makes me suspect of complaining or “bitter”. See how that works? My belief is still, ‘don’t wish it were easier, wish you were better’, but it’s been built into feminization that to even analyze and have critical opinion of it makes you a whiner.

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Charlotte Allen”
    What’s NAWALT?

    Let me Google that for you:

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NAWALT

  44. From Anger Management (Nov 2013):
    http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/06/anger-management/

    Anger is a Gift

    One of the more common criticisms lobbed at the manosphere in general is that the men contributing and commenting are just angry.

    It’s the easiest reaction for men and women conditioned to feminine-primacy to retort with. If men are just “bitter”, “burned” and “angry” it absolve them of really having to think critically about what those men are proposing. Anger is one of those easy answers for people who don’t want to be exposed to things that either they don’t have a real answer for (such as JBY) or are too comfortable in their ego-investments that they don’t want to be forced into any kind of introspection that might challenge them.

    So the manosphere is just a collection of angry men, shaking their virtual fists and venting their frustrations about their loser status, their tough luck or being on the sharp end of the SMP.

    “There’s a lot of anger towards women in the manosphere. These misogynists think all women are evil bitches out to take half their money, steal their children and force them into indentured servitude. I pity them, really I do.”

    Most appeals to anger read like some variation of this. While being an easy retort, playing the anger card is also a very useful social convention for the feminine in that it’s so culturally embedded that it’s men who display the most anger and therefore more believable. Anger is the perfect disqualifier for the feminine. Accusing a man of misogyny will always be more believable than accusing a woman of misandry because men are always just angrier than women.

    Beyond the quick and easy dismissal of anger about anything even marginally critical a man might say about the feminine is an underlying conditioning that prompts people to it. By that I mean, to the majority of blue-pill plugged in people, anything critical of the feminine, by default, is rooted in anger. We can link this to women’s default status of victimhood, but even relating the most objective observation of behaviors, psychology or social constructs pertaining to the feminine in anything less than a flattering light is automatically suspect of a male anger bias.

    But are we angry? I can’t say that I haven’t encountered a few guys on some forums and comment threads who I’d characterize as angry judging from their comments or describing their situations. For the greater whole I’d say the manosphere is not angry, but the views we express don’t align with a feminine-primary society. Men expressing a dissatisfaction with feminine-primacy, men coming together to make sense of it, sound angry to people who’s sense of comfort comes from what the feminine imperative has conditioned them to.

    Most of the men who’ve expressed a genuine anger with me aren’t angry with women, but rather they’re angry with themselves for having been blind to the Game that they’d been a part of for so long in their blue-pill ignorance. They’re angry that they hadn’t figured it out sooner.

    I understand that a lot of what is written in the manosphere can certainly be interpreted as coming from a source for anger. When I (or anyone else) outline the fundaments of hypergamy for instance, there’s a lot to be angry about for a man. Women get pissed because it exposes an ugly truth that the feminine exhausts a lot of resources to keep under the rug, but for men, learning about the feral reasons for feminine (and masculine) behaviors often enough cause a guy to become despondent or angry. That impression should never be the basis for a Man’s Game, nor is it ever really an aspect of internalizing Game that will benefit him personally.

    It’s easy for women and blue-pill men to discourage a Man from red-pill self-improvement by convincing him he’ll turn into an angry Jerk who no woman would want to get with, but the truth is that learning Game isn’t the positively life altering revelation it is because it begins from a root anger. It’s successful because Men have a motivation to move past the anger or despondency that comes from a better understanding of the hows and whys of the feminine. They want a better life for themselves and the women they engage with. Whether that means upping a guy’s notch count or finding a woman worthy of his attentions and provisioning for monogamy, Men realize that their betterment with women and themselves doesn’t begin with anger, or hate, or crazy.

  45. From The 5 Stages of Unplugging (July 2012):
    http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/25/the-5-stages-of-unplugging/

    1. Denial – Still Plugged -In: “These game guys are a bunch of clowns, there’s no way this works on women. Women aren’t stupid. What a bunch of misogynists.”

    2. Anger – Post-Red Pill: “This is ridiculous! Why should I have to jump through all these hoops for women? I just want to be myself. Why couldn’t I have been a Natural Alpha®? I blame my parents/siblings/teachers/God/liberals/feminists/media/society, maybe George Sodini, Andres Breivik, James Holmes wasn’t so crazy after all.”

    3. Bargaining – Unplugged: “Well maybe it does have some good points…but, forget the hot girls, they’re way outta my league. I’ll give it a try if it can help me get around the bases with a plain Jane. Do I have to wear the fuzzy hat and black nail polish?”

    4. Depression – Bitter Taste of the Red Pill: “Wow, women really respond to this puffed-up act? And guys spend big bucks on it and wind up with more ass than a toilet seat? And I just joined up for this? The world is sad and so am I…”

    5. Acceptance – Game Awareness : “Maybe this IS the way things really work. I guess I should give up the gender relations mythology I’ve been holding onto…hey, what do you think of these negs I came up with?”

    6. Jaded* – MGTOW Permutations : “Fuck learning all these rules. Sex isn’t worth it and women aren’t that fun anyway. The last thing I want to do is learn routines or the 5 stages of pickup. There’s too many websites, too much to read, I can’t remember it all much less sort it all out. Who has all that time to go out and chat up women anyway? It’s not like I see any women under 40 at work at my engineering job to practice on. Video games and porn are more fun and more available. I just haffta look good and let the women come to me”

    * This is a late addition to the list, hardly original and arguably relevant, but I added it for precautionary measures.

  46. Elspeth says:

    Not, of course, knowing that intrepid and critical thinking minds that are sick and tired of the RPW baloney can easily connect-the-dots and find out who they really are, where they are, and the real truth about their “dreamy dominant-masculine-frame” husbands.

    If what someone writes is unintelligible, illogical, and unbelievable, what good does it do to waste your time trying to uncover them? Truly critical thinking minds could care less about who such an anonymous Internet commentator really is, and certainly wouldn’t be bothered to investigate them. I would think some one so much more intelligent and enlightened would be driven to write off a fool, rather than chase them down.

    That said, I readily admit not being the sharpest knife in the drawer. Perhaps my logic is lacking and I have far too much naivete. I blogged for 7 years, had many detractors, and haven’t once bothered to care, or even use an IP address for anything other than revealing sock puppets.

    But I thank you for that bit of intel, it explains a lot.

  47. @Rollo Tomassi

    I can’t help it that you don’t like my blog. Each to his own! Everybody’s friend is everybody’s fool.

  48. You can’t be a “Moby” if you’re commenting under your real name.

    It has nothing to do with whether you use your real name or a pseudonym. Either way, as long as you use it to sign everything you say, you’ll develop a reputation under that name and can be held to account for your words. If I used my real name here, it wouldn’t mean anything to anyone, and no one’s going to come to my door to confront me over anything. In fact, now that I’ve been posting as Cail for a while, I do have a body of work as Cail that some people may recognize, so using my real name out of the blue would be a sort of hiding.

    A troll doesn’t use one consistent pseudonym; he posts anonymously or keeps changing names to try to avoid identification as the same troll from yesterday.

    And I hate to say this,

    Now, see, this is too much. You were doing well up to this point, but this is laying it on too thick. This made it obvious that your whole comment was working up to a “You are too!” and you didn’t hate saying it at all. Just say what you mean, without pretending to feel bad about having to school us, since you’re so up-front with your real nobody name and all.

    But I’ll give you credit: you’re a lot better at the game than that Moby.

  49. Said Roosh’s troll.

  50. John Galt says:

    At the end of the day, Moby’s don’t matter. There is no organized MRA movement. You’re never going to see men marching, like Suffragettes did in the 1920’s, or the Women’s Libbers did in the 1970s. Women, IMHO for Darwin reasons, tend to be more collective and men tend to be more individualistic. Instead, I think you’re going to see two things:

    1). Government gets more repressive, trying to keep the current welfare State afloat. Fewer men are going to marry. Fewer men are going to spend the effort needed to be good beta providers, and by implication, better tax cows. With fewer men available and willing to marry (and provide for individual women and their children), American women vote themselves more largesse from the US Government. This happens at the worst possible time as the Baby Boomers work their way through the medical/old age pension system with fewer GenXers and poorer Millenials to support them and more medical expenses due to better/more expensive technology and worse health due to higher rates of substance abuse/obesity than previous generations. This is going to take 50 years or more, during which the government is going to tighten grip and more men are going to slip through the fingers. The government bureaucracy including EPA, IRS; the NGO’s and private actors especially including the intolerant Gaystapo are going to take their toll but are probably not going to lead to a serious rebellion. The bad end of the Laffer curve and regulations will weaken the economic foundation of the US (no one should forget that George S. Patton didn’t win WWII, Henry Kaiser did).

    2). As America follows Europe into demographic suicide, the patriarchy really is going to take over – probably most notably as Sharia; but perhaps also as hardcore evangelical Christians, Mormons, Hasidic Jews, Latin-rite Catholics, etc. Liberals abort more and breed less (and later) and the future belongs to those who show up. The wildcard is whether or not there is some kind of a civil war between atheist/statists and the religious folk; between some combination of white, Hispanic, and Black; or and also a war between Islam and not-Islam….and none of these are anything anyone should hope for – this will result in suffering similar to what the Middle East is enduring. Europeans have not seen anything of this kind since the 30 Years War of the 1600’s, when some provinces in Germany suffered a 2/3 population decline. This might be 200 years out. I think people underestimate the carrying capacity for rot that any country has, see also: North Korea and Venezuela, both of which should have imploded years ago.

    I think this ends very badly. I also think it is inevitable. I wish I didn’t think this, but, again, 15 years on trading floors have taught me to think about what I see and not what I want to see.

  51. JDG says:

    I ALWAYS use my own name, never a pseudonym. I don’t hide behind fake names unlike most commenters…

    You are a woman and likely have nothing to lose for commenting (even if you did no one would try to take it from you), unlike most men who comment.

    Since I don’t use obscenities and I try to respect my opponents (although I sometimes find their views ridiculous), I have nothing to be ashamed of.

    A man doesn’t have to write obscenities or things he is ashamed of to lose his livelihood and reputation. All he has to do is write something a woman like yourself finds shameful or obscene for the axe to fall. You wouldn’t know anything about that though because well, you’re a woman (IOW you DO live in a solipsistic bubble).

    Even though women like GG and Charlotte Allen call themselves anti-feminist, most really are nothing of the sort (they are still anti-male). The vast majority of these women are feminists with a different political bent then “left wing” feminists. Many are egalitarians or humanists, which is just another way to say feminist. A “right wing” feminist is still a feminist, and the “right wing” is so far “left” of the Bible that it hardly matters what they call themselves.

    Women, you really do need to get out of politics, out of men’s spaces, and back in the kitchen.

  52. @JDG

    “All he has to do is write something a woman like yourself finds shameful or obscene for the axe to fall.”

    Right, because four-letter words are obscene only inside my head.

    I actually agree that most women would be happier back in the kitchen.

  53. JDG says:

    Women, IMHO for Darwin reasons, tend to be more collective and men tend to be more individualistic.

    For biblical reasons I agree about women being more collective and I’ll add less sympathetic towards men in general. All the more reason to get them out of politics, law making, and academia.

    I suppose for many who are flowing along in the current of feminism I sound like a fanatic or a “moby” pretending to be a fanatic (I’m not), so I ask such a one, was John Adams or George Washington a fanatic?

    The very idea of a patriarchal society was and is normal to way more people than not. More importantly, a patriarchal society is not inconsistent with biblical standards (unlike an egalitarian or matriarchal society).

  54. @JDG

    I’m totally pro-patriarchy. As long as the patriarch isn’t screaming a bunch of four-letter words at me.

  55. JDG says:

    Right, because four-letter words are obscene only inside my head.

    Men have lost their jobs over a lot less than four letter words. They have had their livelihoods taken from them for merely expressing the “wrong” opinion in front of a “strong independent” woman. You are being evasive and disingenuous. And if you think any future employer is above checking Facebook and Google before they hire someone, think again.

  56. JDG says:

    I’m totally pro-patriarchy. As long as the patriarch isn’t screaming a bunch of four-letter words at me.

    So you are for patriarchy as long as it is one approved by you, a woman.

  57. men hiding behind fake names. [….] obscenities (“quim,” huh?) directed at women. [….] even your friend Roosh has decided you guys are too much [….] How about some of you move to the “bargaining” phase [….] how about some genuine masculinity?

    Shaming, shaming, divide-and-conquer, treacherous advice, and more shaming. Got anything new, or should I beat the rush and start ignoring you now? Sure didn’t take long for you to drop the facade.

  58. JDG says:

    I actually agree that most women would be happier back in the kitchen.

    Here is another example of the “women are what matters” attitude that is so prevalent in this feminist culture. My point had nothing to do with making women (or anyone) happy. My point is that EVERYONE would be BETTER OFF with women back where they belong functioning as a man’s helpmate.

  59. I’m totally pro-patriarchy. As long as the patriarch isn’t screaming a bunch of four-letter words at me.

    What a load. What if the patriarchy says you aren’t allowed to travel in public without a male escort? What if it doesn’t allow women to own property, vote, or speak up in public forums? What if it says your children are the sole property of their father? These are all common features of patriarchies. So you’re just fine with all those things, as long as no one offends your delicate ears?

    You can’t even control your disdain for men long enough to fool some guys on a blog for a few hours, and you expect us to believe that you want a society where most of your decisions would be made for you by men? Pull the other one.

  60. DeNihilist says:

    Rollo @ 4:27

    and again, he says it without the velvet gloves that I tried to employ.

  61. BradA says:

    CA,

    You sure reply a lot for someone who rarely replies.

  62. Scott says:

    Very informative thread. I don’t generally have much to say on threads about trolls, and all the psychology around the phenomenon. (Strangely enough)

    Crimson viceroy makes probably the most eloquent argument for anonymity I have read to date. I unmasked originally because I wanted zero risk of being “outed.” But I also only go about 60% of the way regarding what I really think.

    His points are essentially irrefutable, so I will not try.

    Given the chance I might go back in time and stay anonymous. But the cat is out of the bag now.

    Again, good stuff gents.

  63. Dale says:

    @CrimsonViceroy
    > This is the reason why they hate MGTOW so much..because it doesn’t fit their narrative of abuse or violence. It is as non-violent as you can get because it admonishes men to let women be and to their own devices by shaking the dust of their feet and moving on with life.

    Hey! You just pointed out that MGTOWs follow the same non-resistance tenant as the Anabaptists. Hey John! We’re all Anabaptists! hah hah. And you thought no one was joining you…🙂
    Although actually I personally am not a follower of that version of MGTOW… I do take some action to critique sinful behaviour, rather than just washing my hands of them. Although I am willing to do the latter also. And the Anabaptists do both also, as required by Scripture. (And yes I do routinely critique myself first, before others — Mat 7:1-6.)

    @BPP
    >Women DO NOT have moral agency. Society has all but removed it from them.

    I think it would be better to say that society, in general, raises women who have very weakly exercised minds/consciences/acceptance of consequences, and thus they act as if they had no moral agency.
    Similar to how my leg muscles looked after being in a full-leg cast for a few months. The total thigh diameter was less than half the normal size. I was so weak I could not even walk. If the muscles were present, you could not tell by the appearance, actions or abilities. Of course they were present, but needed discipline to redevelop.

    Unfortunately, much of BPP’s rant is made of valid points in it. There are many proofs that the moral character of many women in our nations resemble my post-cast leg. Under used, under disciplined and pathetic.

  64. Ray Manta says:

    JDG wrote:
    You are a woman and likely have nothing to lose for commenting (even if you did no one would try to take it from you), unlike most men who comment.

    If I used my real name in my postings, I could easily render myself unemployed, and perhaps unemployable. I find it amusing that Ms. Allen believes that she can sit in judgement of men who have to face accountability for their words and actions (she really doesn’t).

    For biblical reasons I agree about women being more collective and I’ll add less sympathetic towards men in general.

    Both men and women have a built-in tendency to be more sympathetic to women. Healthy cultures have compensating mechanisms which include greater economic and social power for men. The only reason Western societies can violate this rule to any degree is that the surplus of wealth they generate allows them to get away with squandering it on “female empowerment”.

  65. MarcusD says:

    I seem to recall a study that found that conservative knew liberal positions better than liberals knew conservative positions.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ray Manta
    Both men and women have a built-in tendency to be more sympathetic to women.

    There’s even a name for this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E2%80%9D_effect

  67. hoellenhund2 says:

    I left these comments on another blog last December. This thread makes it obvious they are still relevant:

    You know, it’d almost be fantastic if a disagreeing female commenter offered criticism that was even a bit original or novel on a ‘sphere blog. But no, we always get the same nonsense, the same snark, the same shaming language.

    This sort of attitude is the main reason I stopped reading female bloggers and journalists altogether. It’s a waste of time. But again, wouldn’t it be a pleasant surprise to see constructive, interesting criticism of the Manosphere that was

    a) made by a woman
    b) made in good faith
    c) without snark
    d) not based on either feminist or tradcon orthodoxy
    4) reasonable and logical?

    Yeah. I won’t be holding my breath either.

  68. Ray Manta says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    There’s even a name for this: (url)

    A related, but slightly different factor is women’s own-group preference. If you want to know why HR departments are almost entirely staffed by women and the occasional gay man, look no further. Then there’s female herding, which allows unrelated women to join together in a collective “hive-mind” to further their own interests.

    In the human ancestral environment and stable older societies, these behaviors had sharp limits defined by social customs, the scarcity of resources, and the presence of a male “herd”. Men were either part of an extended family clan of genetic relatives or a cohesive culture that would give them a degree of protection from female abuse of power. But in the modern world, these countervailing forces have been greatly reduced in power and even eliminated in some cases.

  69. feeriker says:

    Spanking women, now I could get behind that- but beating the crap out of them, not so much. Normal men have a strong genetic aversion to beating women or else it would happen a fuck ton of a lot more than it does now.

    This brings to mind an unforgettable scene from the Martin Lawrence comedy film Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins, where, in getting into a fight with his sister (played by landwhale actress Mo;nique), Lawrence says something to the effect of “I would never hit a woman, but I’ll beat the shit out of a bitch!”

    Kinda sums it up nicely.

  70. Isa says:

    @hoellenhund2

    I’ll take a stab. The general “problem” with the movement is that there is no governing force to enforce rules/conduct/overall philosophy. Anyone can start a blog and say it’s in the sphere, because that phrase has no real definition at the moment. That is of course combined with a culture that rather prides itself on not being orderly and following rules, so no unified force = confused messaging = dissonance = lack of tangible results on a large scale.

    Now, this will perhaps change over time, as all social movements coalesce around charismatic leaders and develop “platforms” if you would. This just takes a good 50 years or more.

    I also have tended to discount people who use “scandalous” language, as it seems to me a shortcut disguising a lack of proper depth. Anyone can cuss, very few can argue coherently. This has very little to do with tradcon/feminism, but rather intellectualism. Luckily with the coarsening culture I’m learning to tune the trashiness, making it very easy not to comment on language, which rarely has good effect.

    Finally, I have a very low internet profile on purpose, as I am one of only two living people on the entire planet with my name. “Catherine Allen” is a dime a dozen. Isa Zgraja (not my real name, but a decent example), too easy to find. It is also useful for a woman not only for safety (no stalkers/threats) but no contact from exes, both of which make for much smoother marriages. I’m also quite paranoid about privacy in general, but working in tech does that to you in the end.

  71. feeriker says:

    Women, you really do need to get out of politics, out of men’s spaces, and back in the kitchen.

    Getting them back into the kitchen would probably require a sizable contingent of men to train them in what to do once they’re there.

  72. feeriker says:

    I’m totally pro-patriarchy. As long as the patriarch isn’t screaming a bunch of four-letter words at me.

    “I’m totally pro-patriarchy as long as I, as a woman, get to ultimately decide what constitutes acceptable patriarchal conduct.”

    Didn’t even need the Hamsterlator for that one.

  73. hoellenhund2 says:

    This is the reason why they hate MGTOW so much..because it doesn’t fit their narrative of abuse or violence. It is as non-violent as you can get because it admonishes men to let women be and to their own devices by shaking the dust of their feet and moving on with life. Any place that is infiltrated by these RPW’s will begin to show anti-MGTOW sentiments, such as A Voice for Men, which is now mostly moderated by women.

    MGTOW don’t fit any narrative. In fact, that’s the main problem polite society has with them. They refuse to follow any approved script, which people generally find irritating because it goes completely against public discourse about society’s growing problems. This is a wider phenomenon in every Western and Westernized society. There’s a growing sense of calamity and angst, a belief that something has gone wrong and now we’re one a path towards less prosperity, weaker stability and so on. If a growing number of men become passive and opt out of the game, they do the opposite of what society increasingly expects of them: bust their asses, get shitty jobs and work like oxes, raise children and generally do everything necessary to keep their less and less solvent societies afloat. This is what’s happening today, hence the increasingly shrill, desperate and agitated public discourse about men who refuse to go up, man up etc.

  74. mrteebs says:

    The hand was overplayed here. Amateurish in the extreme. If you’re going to be a Moby, learn to do so undetected and with some modicum of subtlety. Nudge the pendulum ever so slightly versus slamming it to the extremes of its excursion and snapping it off.

    But, this caricature is what the left actually believes that anyone who opposes feminism must have coursing through their veins and firing in their synapses. To the writer, this was not over the top because she (and it very likely was a she as opposed to a card carrying mangina) imagines all non-feminist males to be Billy Bobs.

  75. Maunalani says:

    The grand-daddy of all Mobys is the so-called “Westboro Baptist Church.” Somebody is underwriting them to the tune of millions of dollars to travel all over the country and do their thing.

  76. mrteebs says:

    Correction: …this caracature is what the left and many on the right actually believes that anyone who opposes feminism must have coursing through their veins and firing in their synapses.

  77. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Speaking of double standards and anger…

    In 1992, Democrats swept elections across the U.S., with Clinton winning the presidency. This was credited to a large turnout of female voters.

    In 1994, Republicans swept elections, taking back the House and Senate, and many governorships, even in liberal states. This was credited to male voters.

    The media called 1992 The Year of the Woman.

    The media called 1994 The Year of the Angry, White Man.

    Funny, how women are celebrated when they’re motivated to vote in large numbers. But men are derided as “angry” for doing the same thing.

  78. The implication also seems to be that if you’re a white man, you really have nothing to be “angry” about. At least, nothing that bad.

  79. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    It seems that Wikipedia too is a cause for female grievance. Most of its editors are men, so naturally, Wikipedia’s reliability cannot be trusted: http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2015/05/wikipedia-has-colossal-problem-women-dont-edit-it

  80. Dave says:

    It seems that Wikipedia too is a cause for female grievance. Most of its editors are men, so naturally, Wikipedia’s reliability cannot be trusted…

    As usual, the fault is men’s too! Men holding the women back, and not allowing them to edit the freely available, open-to-all internet source.
    Fact is, even avowed feminists recognize that when it comes talent for and interest in specific subjects, men and women are sometimes light years apart. Taylor Swift is a vocal supporter of feminism, yet she would not hire women in her business. If she had to hire 100 people to do her video, at least 80 of them would be men. This has been shown again and again to be true.

  81. Opus says:

    That’s what I like about being here rather than with you: I get to sleep whilst you are sending the latest camouflaged Feminist to the long grass (a cricketing term). Charlotte Allen is merely a new made Marie-Antoinette endorsing our consumption of cake. Love the way only women may control language – a sentiment manginas so I have observed endorse: she objects to ‘quim’ [I did not see the context] and gets to use this slang word when telling us of her dislike, yet a (so I am told) lesbian paedophillic play is promoted up and down the country entitled with the same part of the female anatomy [The Vagina Monologues] without so much as a complaint and if you do complain you are a loser who cannot handle female empowerment etc, etc.

  82. Elspeth says:

    Crimson viceroy makes probably the most eloquent argument for anonymity I have read to date. I unmasked originally because I wanted zero risk of being “outed.”

    This is a god point, but here is what I cannot reconcile. There is a reasonable expectation that rabid leftists, feminists, and the political correctness thought police will go after people’s identity whom they disagree with or deem to be a threat of some sort for the purpose of silencing and/or destroying them. It’s par for the course, and Saul Alinsky even provided a tome to guide like minded individuals.

    But the comment offered indicates that people within this sphere, who have a problem with women bloggers and commenters, might be inclined to do such a thing.

    Why would people who advocate for the right to go their own way (a freedom I would assume applies to everyone, including to those who travel in a direction which they disagree), and who support the rights of men to express their anger and thoughts freely under cover of anonymity and without censure, be even slightly inclined to “out” those with whom they disagree simply because they disagree with them? It doesn’t compute. It is a blatant inconsistency and stands in stark contrast to the ideal of believing that people should be free to express themselves.

    Every blog moderator has the power to dictate who they will and will not allow to comment on their site, Cane Caldo handled this problem by simply banning women commenters. Problem solved, and in a clear, unambiguous, and respectable way.

    Commenters who attempt to moderate other people’s blogs through veiled threats and intimidation should stop and think about if they really believe what they say they believe, or if their true motto is: “Freedom of speech for me but not for thee”.

    Leftists doing this is expected. But it should not be so among people who purport to believe just the opposite. Even if the target is a woman. And to include husbands? Unconscionable really, no matter how you cut it.

  83. Opus says:

    Entirely agree with Elspeth – indeed on one of just two occasions (on-line) where I used my baptismal name that (what she describes in her first paragraph) is exactly what happened to me (a real policeman breathing down my neck for politically incorrect heresy).

  84. Novaseeker says:

    The implication also seems to be that if you’re a white man, you really have nothing to be “angry” about. At least, nothing that bad.

    I think it’s more the idea that “those white guys are just angry that they’re losing their privilege and power, so it’s not justified anger, but sour grapes and should be called out as such”.

  85. hoellenhund2 says:

    I think it’s more the idea that “those white guys are just angry that they’re losing their privilege and power, so it’s not justified anger, but sour grapes and should be called out as such”.

    We have, in fact, just received more proof – if anyone still needed any – that even supposedly non-partisan websites like Cracked have become full-blown leftist SJW rags:

    cracked.com/blog/5-helpful-answers-to-societys-most-uncomfortable-questions/

    The bullshit liberal dogma of white male privilege is now widely accepted as truth even outside liberal academic circles. David Wong, on a different note, is a typical misandrist shitbag. He has written a number of articles just like this one.

    On the other hand, Duffel Blog, which is also a humor site, is surprisingly red pill:

    duffelblog.com/2014/05/teddy-bar-jody-wife-cheating/

  86. hoellenhund2 says:

    On a completely different note, Vox Day has brought attention to a fascinating story offering further proof how feminist ideology perpetuates itself.

    alphagameplan.blogspot.hu/2015/05/damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont.html

    jezebel.com/men-in-congress-are-trying-to-avoid-being-alone-with-fe-1704711036

    In a nutshell:

    1. Feminists and their hangers-on push for tough laws against male-on-female sexual harassment and sexual assault at the workplace.

    2. Congressmen react by avoiding any situation where such accusations could even occur.

    3. Feminists present this reaction as yet another example of white male privilege discriminating against female employees (I’m not making this up) and denounce these men as misogynists shitbags.

    The sheer extent of delusion and nonsense characterizing the decline of this lousy civilization is greatly amusing.

  87. John Nesteutes says:

    @hoellenhund2

    The general attitude of feminists and their white knights is that:

    (1) Female staffers have a right to be alone, with the door shut, with a congressman. Likewise to be alone with him on car rides.

    (2) It is sexist for a congressman not to consent to this

    (3) If he is concerned about impropriety, the fault rests entirely on the congressman not to harass.

    (4) False harassment accusations are rare or almost never happen, so the risk to the congressman of them happening is much less important than it is for female staffers to be able to rise up through the ranks.

    Where I live, back in reality, a guy who has closed door meetings with female employees would (a) find the parents of said girls telling them to quit their jobs, and (b) would find himself ostracised from the community and/or disciplined by the church for “the appearance of evil”.

  88. John Nesteutes says:

    @Dale:

    Hey! You just pointed out that MGTOWs follow the same non-resistance tenant as the Anabaptists. Hey John! We’re all Anabaptists! hah hah. And you thought no one was joining you…🙂
    Although actually I personally am not a follower of that version of MGTOW… I do take some action to critique sinful behaviour, rather than just washing my hands of them. Although I am willing to do the latter also. And the Anabaptists do both also, as required by Scripture. (And yes I do routinely critique myself first, before others — Mat 7:1-6.)

    I got over my disdain for MGTOWs. I can’t see anything wrong or immoral with what they’re doing (other than fornication, but that’s not exactly the exclusive domain of MGTOWs). They’re responding to incentives. If society has a problem with their behaviour, it needs to adjust its incentives.

    Matthew 7:1-6 is a much-abused piece of scripture – everyone wants to sign up for “don’t judge me”, but I sure don’t see the same people signing up for “give to whomever asks of you”. And definitely not “whoever remarries commits adultery”. Nay, those who seek not to be judged are often the ones who have 5 husbands, and the man they live with now is not their husband.

    @Maunalani, May 29, 2015 at 2:16 am:

    The grand-daddy of all Mobys is the so-called “Westboro Baptist Church.” Somebody is underwriting them to the tune of millions of dollars to travel all over the country and do their thing.

    Indeed. I’m surprised nobody’s figured this out. (Although they generate a lot of their own revenue by suing cities that try to silence them for violating their 1st amendment rights, and then negotiating settlements.)

    I actually don’t have a lot of problems with what Westboro does, other than the fact I’m neither a Baptist nor do I believe in staging public political protests due to my religious beliefs. But the social-conservative narrative seems to be “We would never be caught dead saying mean things about gay people!!!”

    Spineless.

  89. DeNihilist says:

    Isa – baseball is perhaps the best sport allegory for the male species. Though a “team” sport, it is the most individual participation of all team sports.

  90. Regular Guy says:

    mrteebs said, “But, this caricature is what the left actually believes that anyone who opposes feminism must have coursing through their veins and firing in their synapses. To the writer, this was not over the top because she (and it very likely was a she as opposed to a card carrying mangina) imagines all non-feminist males to be Billy Bobs.”

    The origins of this way of thinking is from women after all, being shallow in understanding and obsessing over the way things appear as opposed to discerning the way things are. Feelings trump truth dressed in the trappings of intellectualism with none of the merit to warrant it.

  91. Regular Guy says:

    @seriouslyserving said:

    “The implication also seems to be that if you’re a white man, you really have nothing to be “angry” about. At least, nothing that bad.

    Kind of OT: The modern professional victim mantra is “Black Lives Matter”. I’m wondering, do the lives of young, middle-class white men matter? It is they who bear the brunt of casualties in wars that enforce America’s petro-dollar racket. The middle-class must be made aware of the ruling class’ intention to sacrifice their sons to the false idol of “Economy”. We need them home, being strong fathers and citizens, Ba’al be damned.

    And for those who’ve I’ve outraged, I don’t mean to imply that America doesn’t have enemies in the middle east. That is flawed argument that liberals and libertarians make. However, once you begin to understand Nixon’s petro-dollar agreement policy with the middle east, the motives of our Gov’t become clear as they play out in the news headlines (lies) today. We are not leaving the middle east, not by a long shot.

  92. John Nesteutes says:

    @Regular Guy:

    I’m wondering when conservative Christians will give up the God & Country thing. I’m not expecting them to adopt full-blown Anabaptist non-resistance, but they could at least quit sending their young men off to be destroyed by our military machine.

  93. crimsonviceroy says:

    One should always take talks of “threats” and “intimidation” from women with a generous grain of salt, considering their proclivity to use such countermeasures as ways to counter-censor people who don’t agree with them, and thus make them FEEL threatened without actually having truly threatened them. Does a police officer, who is arresting someone, threaten them when they read them their Miranda Rights as in “you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and WILL be used against you in the court of law”? To me that sounds like an option to protect oneself from further incrimination. Same goes with whatever is discussed online. My comment was meant as a precaution to those who love to blurb on and on about their personal details, and when said details are used to attack their arguments, the ground their arguments stand upon, or the credibility of the foundation of those arguments, the same people will then run to the local authorities screaming “threat”. Case-in-point, girlwithadragonflytattoo’s not-so-veiled threats against one of her commentators, Chiglinsky, in which she basically said that she would report his IP address to her husband (a police officer) so that he could be charged for sexual harassment and a whole host of fraudulent charges just because she felt threatened by him. Now THAT is a threat, and THAT is something worth noting. Someone using publicly displayed and available information that was VOLUNTARILY given (whether done with full consciousness is completely upon the personal responsibility of the individual in question), to discredit their debater’s arguments is NOT a threat. If someone actually mentioned using that information for nefarious purposes or releasing that information to individuals who will use it for nefarious purposes (and they have to be pretty clear), then it’s all a he-said-she-said scenario. Your feelings don’t dictate reality. However, collectively speaking, women’s feelings do dictate law, hence the steady disenfranchisement of many a voices under the veiled tyrannical countermeasure of “security”.

    The reason why most of the blokes on here don’t indulge in private details is already discussed above. And to that, I might add one more to the list, that is a bit more practical. The US government is still the largest employer in this country, both directly and indirectly through defense and civilian contractors. As such, most of those positions that pay a livable and family-sustaining wage (whether it be an intact two-parent household or a more common broken family due to frivorce) require security clearances. This means that when the government snoops into your personal details and your “online footprint” prior to granting a security clearance, anything you have said can and WILL be used against you, so you have the right to remain silent, just as you have the right to freedom of speech. You are, of course, free to exercise your own personal discretion as to how you exercise it, but you are NOT free from the consequences of your words or your silence. You will not find the manosphere so easily bending to your complaints of threats as we have heard the boy call wolf on too many innocent men as it is.

    Opus,
    What you identified IS a threat. A police officer was using his position of trusted authority to threaten your freedom of speech and liberty by using (pre)judicial discretion to threaten you with (un)lawful enforcement. Not unlike how girlwithadragonflytattoo used her connections with local law enforcement (i.e. her husband) to threaten one of her commentators. THAT is a threat. What Elspeth is talking about is muddling in the grey area of feeling threatened vs. actually BEING threatened and using it to counter-censor anyone who makes her feel bad or has called out the credibility of her arguments and commenting strategies.

    What is unconscionable is when legal enforcement actions are used to intimidate others to silence by using terms such as “veiled threats and intimidation” to indicate potentially harassing behaviors when no such behavior is present. It won’t work here. Those intrepid and critical thinking minds that I referred to in my comment don’t necessarily have to be people in the manosphere. It can also mean people not unlike those who sprung up parody websites like FreeJinger did to SSM right around the time she deleted her old blog. They are clearly NOT people from around here, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t able to use publicly made available information from SSM no less, to criticize her arguments and credibility.

    There’s a difference between using such information to simply poke fun at an individual with no other purpose than to for the sake of it and to use said publicly available information to attack their arguments and credibility for the sake of debate and dialogue. It’s all in the matter of context. Just cause you “feel” like when someone uses personal information you once had made available to argue against you, doesn’t make it a “veiled threat” or “intimidation” tactic.

  94. thedeti says:

    “do the lives of young, middle-class white men matter? ”

    In our society, increasingly, the answer is “no”.

  95. crimsonviceroy says:

    Of course, it’s no different than how those women in Canada initiated the Slut Walk because a police officer gave them some friendly advice to not dress like sluts in particular areas during particular times of the night. Apparently friendly advice in how to be more protective about oneself online is now considered a intimidation against one’s freedom of speech. I think we can all pretty much see where that line of reasoning can and will lead to.

  96. Regular Guy says:

    @ John Nesteutes

    Pastors need to impress on their congregations that Jesus Christ sets his own agenda. When people say careless things like, “Jesus is a Communist” or “If Jesus would come back, he would be a Republican” it is so shamefully disrespectful and foolish.

    A better way of saying this would be, “Do Democrats conform to the likeness of Christ? Do Republicans conform to the likeness of Christ?”. These questions answer themselves.

  97. hoellenhund2 says:

    “do the lives of young, middle-class white men matter? ”

    In our society, increasingly, the answer is “no”.

    They never did. The difference in the old days was that there was at least a pretense that their interests have social weight. They actually did not have any, but that was taboo. Now they are openly denounced as useless, irritating social ballast.

  98. feeriker says:

    I’m wondering when conservative Christians will give up the God & Country thing. I’m not expecting them to adopt full-blown Anabaptist non-resistance, but they could at least quit sending their young men off to be destroyed by our military machine.

    The answer to your rhetorical question, John, is “never,” because American “conservative Christians” are churchians, not Christians. First and foremost, they are American ueber-nationalists who subordinate all of their other beliefs, including their (ostensible) belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to “Amerika Ueber Alles.” Thus their willingness to sacrifice their sons (and, sickeningly and with increasing frequency, their daughters) to Moloch. Because Caesar is their true god (well, at least if Caesar is a Republican), no war of aggression is ever unjust and no amount of sacrifice is too great to ensure that his imperial legions –and thus his state-corporatist kingdom on Earth– prevail.

  99. thedeti says:

    OT but interesting to me.

    In the right sidebar is a “Top Posts” list that Dalrock has had on this site almost from its inception.

    There are two posts which have, for the more than 4 years I have been perusing this site, consistently appeared on that “top posts” list. This means these posts are among the ones on Dalrock’s site that receive the most traffic and “visits” and “hits”.

    The first is “Are women done with men after age 55?” This post was essentially one discussing whether single and divorced women want sex or marriage or relationships after they reach senior citizenhood. It has well over 1000 comments, many of whom are over-55 women talking about one of the following:

    1. How done they are with marriage. (Oh yes, they are done. So done they feel the need to come to a manosphere site to talk incessantly about how done they are with men. )

    2. How lonely they are because they so do NOT want to be done with men, but attractive men seem to be done with them.

    3. Divorced women reveling in one last spin on the carousel with old college boyfriends; or cougaring it up with romps in the sack with younger men cutting their sexual teeth.

    The second post is “Advice to a woman in her 30s looking to marry”. There are many, many comments here about the topic heading — usually from single, never married women who want to get married. The desperation and confusion comes through many of their posts.

    The enduring popularity of these posts is a source of repeated fascination to me, and is very telling to me as well.

    1. Women want men throughout their lives.
    2. Women want to be attractive to men.
    3. A woman’s inability to extract commitment from an attractive man is a source of deep, deep frustration, confusion and lifelong regret.
    4. A woman’s discarding of a suitable man is a source of deep regret.
    5. Women are deeply confused about what will really bring them joy, fulfillment and satisfaction in their lives. Most of them have imbibed deeply of the feminist/socialist Kool Aid which has told them they MUST have careers, MUST have lots of premarital sexual experience, and MUST delay marriage as long as they can. If they don’t do these things they will fall prey to the evil machinations of the patriarchy, or have to “settle” for a “less-than” man.

  100. thedeti says:

    UPdate:

    As of today, May 29, 2015, the “are women done with men after age 55” post has 1500 comments. The discussion is still active, with the last comment left by Dalrock himself not even two hours ago.

  101. Regular Guy says:

    @ John Nesteutes

    Also, TradCons need to be called out on this lie of “we’re fighting for freedom” when stateside, the cradle-to-grave entitlement/surveillance/police state is putting an end to those freedoms as we speak.

  102. crimsonviceroy says:

    feeriker,

    I’m glad that someone is willing to point to the bull elephant in the room. AMEN! Any honest Christian would almost NEVER co-sign on any national agenda that is dished out by an overbearing and SPECIFICALLY hostile to Christ government. Those same “conservative Christians” have the same sort of nationalistic and jingoistic mentality that the colonial Loyalists had towards Mother England while their “radical insurgent” Patriot brothers fought for the liberties that we supposedly enjoy today (not for long, sadly as the way THIS government is going). Unfortunately, most mainstream Christians have rendered onto Ceasar what is rightfully God’s…INCLUDING MARRIAGE. A day is coming very soon where we will have to ask whether we belong to God or we belong to the Red, White, and Blue. For many, that day has come and gone. I can assure you, that the two are NOT mutually inclusive. They may have been once upon a time, but certainly not now.

  103. Boxer says:

    As of today, May 29, 2015, the “are women done with men after age 55″ post has 1500 comments. The discussion is still active, with the last comment left by Dalrock himself not even two hours ago.

    I doubt I’m the only one who gets much mirth out of this article, this “gift that keeps on giving”. One of the funniest things on the internet.

  104. Dimitri says:

    I honestly don’t know what I’d do without my ‘where are all the good men’ articles on huffpo.

  105. “do the lives of young, middle-class white men matter? ”

    They never have, but in the past there was always something to keep them busy: subsistence farming, dangerous factory work, and more wars to fight and die in. Now that mom and pop farms are all but extinct, manufacturing has been largely outsourced, and the all volunteer military is directed toward limited wars not in the national interest, society is more open about how much men don’t matter.

  106. Elspeth says:

    There’s a difference between using such information to simply poke fun at an individual with no other purpose than to for the sake of it and to use said publicly available information to attack their arguments and credibility for the sake of debate and dialogue. It’s all in the matter of context. Just cause you “feel” like when someone uses personal information you once had made available to argue against you, doesn’t make it a “veiled threat” or “intimidation” tactic.

    I’m still confused as to why, when a person has an extensive archive of online commentary at which to poke fun, it is necessary to investigate who they are, who their husband is, and where they live in order to poke fun at them. I’ve poked fun at plenty of things I’ve read online without needing to do that. To the extent that a person reveals things such as their real name, city, etc, then they have certainly made it easier for someone to connect the dots and find out who they are. I truly don’t see the point of it, but you’re right.

    If I’d felt threatened by the comments offered I wouldn’t have responded to them. It is simply worth examining one’s motivations behind trying to investigate anonymous writers of tiny blogs who are of no import in the grand scheme. I am not referring to people whose information is freely offered and which is therefore easily verified or discredited with a few clicks. I didn’t get the impression you meant that either, since you used the word “intrepid”, which implies a certain amount of zeal.

    Apparently friendly advice in how to be more protective about oneself online is now considered a intimidation against one’s freedom of speech. I think we can all pretty much see where that line of reasoning can and will lead to.

    If I misinterpreted, then it’s my error, but it sounded to me as if you were making a point of saying that anonymous women online need to be wary of having men who are sick of the RPW garbage sniff them out since the reference to truly “critical thinking people” automatically discounts most women.

    As for Free Jinger, when featured on their forums in the distant past, they never showed any inkling of a hint of having tried to uncover my identity, despite my posts being fisked numerous times. I hadn’t provided enough information to make it worth the trouble to anyone who wasn’t extremely interested. Same with other women whom they’ve targeted for entertainment.

    In the case you highlighted, someone on their forum realized that they actually knew exactly who SSM was, had some real life connection to her, and felt the need to set whatever records straight. Again, not the same as investigating and possibly outing a total stranger. It’s worth noting that whatever information was uncovered was made widespread not on FJ, but within the “red pill” sphere.

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ray Manta: in the Wiki article on “women are wonderful” the female ingroup preference (4:1) is mentioned, and appropriately so, because that ingroup preference surely is part of the whole “wonderful” notion.

    Here is a link to a study from 2004 on the topic of ingroup preference. It is interesting that I can’t seem to find any more recent work.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

  108. DeNihilist says:

    Deti, may I add #6?

    6 – even as women enter their wise years, they still do not understand that quiet joy is higher then shrieking happiness, friendship is deeper then love, and contentment with ones lot in life is the key to, well, contentment!

  109. crimsonviceroy says:

    So then what the heck is the bone you are trying to pick at? Honestly, if you are attempting to garner attention by martyring yourself, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Since you speak in personal anecdotes incessantly, and attempt to use them as the foundation for your NAWALT counterarguments against most of the topics on the manosphere, then it’s par for the course that personal information that has been publicly made available would be used to tear down anecdotal counterarguments or their validity. You can question motives all you want, just as people here can question why someone who is clearly uncomfortable with most of the way information is relayed and the context and syntax through which it is conveyed by still wants to stick around. You stick around to experience the full breadth of the commentary and posting regarding harsh criticisms of generalized female behavior in and out of marriage, and then you go and complain about it on another blog where more sympathetic voices tell you that it’s all “manosphere boilerplate: predictable, boring, and totally unoriginal” and “there’s no use arguing with the willfully lost.” (https://notequalbutdifferent.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/total-self-determination-is-a-lie/)

    So if that’s the case, then why bother sticking around? Is it because you want to save us poor willfully lost souls? Is your mission truly that altruistic?

    When someone speaks in personal anecdotes all the time, then they are relating to others that personal details are the methods by which they communicate. Thus, if someone were to attempt to dismantle and discredit your arguments, they would have to “speak your lingo” insofar as at least attempt to show just how very limited the validity of your arguments are to the generic topics presented by presenting holes in those anecdotes and their inability to render a firm, factual and more globally observable conclusion.

  110. Elspeth says:

    I wasn’t trying to martyr myself. I was trying very hard to keep my comments as general as possible, actually. I am genuinely interested in what the point is of seeking out anonymous writers of small blogs, disrespecting the privilege of their anonymity while carefully safeguarding your own. Do unto others and all that.

    Attempting to discredit me by quoting someone else’s words is weak. You’ve dropped that link in two places now. I’m sure everyone has seen it. I’ve never hidden my belief that the wretchedness which permeates modern Western womanhood and the possibility of decent women in the world are not mutually exclusive. Call it NAWALT, call it actually believing the gospel. Either way, I’ve never denied it.

    You’re moving the goal posts. The topic at hand was not about objectionable or feminine communication styles. The fact that many women communicate through anecdotes still offers no reasonable justification for the searching out of pertinent personal details pertaining to their identity.

    Even if you figure out who she is (and given that you made certain I know that you know where I live which I suppose means that other members of the manosphere watch collective blog know it too), short of actually infiltrating that woman’s life in some way as to gain intimate knowledge of her family’s inner workings, knowing who she is or who her husband is serves absolutely no purpose at all.

    And for the record, this blog right here, Dalrock’s, is actually the only one around whose posts consist primarily of statistics and facts. LGR to her credit does occasionally offer historical references and valuable information pertaining the the trajectory of modern feminism. But last I checked, repeating widely held generalized observations is not the same thing as statistics and facts. Evo-psych is not statistics and facts. Even if the observations are generally true, they are still not statistics and facts.

    I am (again) still at a loss as to any reasonable justification for anonymous people who passionately advocate for freedom to encroach on someone else’s freedom to remain anonymous. This is the bone I am picking.

  111. crimsonviceroy says:

    You’re the one who posted that link up on LGR’s blog as a response to me in saying that Lena says it better than you do. Thus they are your own co-opted words used in response to mine. I pointed to a nebulous region in the United States which spans several hundred miles is hardly zoning in on where you live. I was using that as a point of general geographical reference to discount your anecdotes as highly localized examples. Perhaps it failed or perhaps it succeeded in discounting your highly localized anecdotes on how several of your neighbors don’t display the qualities that Ballista was talking about in modern SAHM’s. Your anonymity is still in tact as far as you have allowed it since the only piece of information that was divulged is information that you yourself voluntarily spread out in your own blog and online presence, and which the readership probably ALREADY know about. Unless there was information that was not given out such as specific names and specific street addresses, you are howling at the moon in terms of bellyaching for sympathy. If you are still confused, then that’s your problem.

  112. Renee Harris says:

    This took three hours to write
    I have been reading this blog since October. I always get called a troll. As a student of communications, The concept of trolling is very interesting to me. However, I’m not smart enough to pull off a well done troll.
    Nevertheless the problem that a lot of women have with this blog is that it’s not geared toward women. Dalrock is discussing feminism as it relates to and affects manhood, Christianity and marriage for men. Contrary to what women believe, Dalrock is not discussing feminism. Rather he is examining the above issues looking at it through the lens of the negative effects of feminism.Any card-carrying feminist with a literature degree would’ve done this in her second year by taking a course On the different ways to examine literature: cultural, histrionic etc.
    I started reading this blog because apparently there are men who want to marry a virgin; that is anathema to me. I think sex is a beautiful and fun way for married people to serve each other and honor God. But I’m not in a place were I can have sex without sin as I am an unkissed unmarried virgin. After years of getting the feminine “oh just wait and see” crap I finally decided to get a man opinion of what I was doing wrong. I found men who dislike non virgins. What?
    The one problem I have with the blog is the belief that all women over 25 that are not married were sleeping around in their early 20s. I don’t have memory problems and I don’t remember having sexual activity in the last 28 years with another human being. This isn’t NAWALT ; If I was pretty and had the opportunity I would have rode the carousel. But when every guy you like calls you a retard sex is not an option. By the Time I like myself enough to get a guy to nail me I had read* through all the New Testament and most of the old and believe them . Moreover I tried to use sex to get a man’s attention it didn’t work out well and I ended up wasting a lot of his time.( still an unkissed 3-hole virgin)
    I no longer mind being called a troll, as a woman reading a blog meant for men All of us are. However Dalrock could stop all women from commenting But he had not yet. As an exercise in respect, we can keep our outrageous to ourselves and only comment questions that can be somewhat useful to the discussion
    *’ listen to audio bible

  113. RichardP says:

    One of the side effects of reading blogs where women are allowed to participate in the verbal free-fo-alls is being exposed to women’s thought process. I have learned some rather astounding things listen to the men and women talk to each other, and past each other, on blogs hosted by both the men and the ladies.

    There is a cliche – “you never really get to know a person until you have had a chance to see the choices they make”. The choices people make on these blogs in how they respond to others helps me learn more about the differences in thinking process between male and female. Don’t get to see that on blogs that are women only or men only.

  114. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    thedeti: Women are deeply confused about what will really bring them joy, fulfillment and satisfaction in their lives.

    What you refer to as confusion, women call complexity. I heard a female radio psychobabbler say that “Women are more complex [than are men].”

    That’s what women tell themselves. Rather than admit how dreadfully confused and broken they are, they say, “I’m so complex.” Which sounds akin to “I’m so intelligent. The complexity of my mind cannot be easily understood by the simplistic male brain.”

    Women are less able than men to acknowledge their own shortcomings. I’ve known women who always had to be patronized and praised, because any criticism might spark an outburst of anger and rage.

  115. Pingback: The elite are godless, And Perverted. And weighed, and found wanting. | Dark Brightness

  116. MarcusD says:

    Devout and soon to be divorced
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=962559

    Almost over
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=962520

    You’ll know (or see) from their posting histories on CAF that the first poster is almost certainly not at fault, whereas the latter one is most likely the cause of the divorce (latter is BEL-lite, basically).

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s