We need to focus on respect instead of fairness.

Instapundit has a link to an article on his wife’s book Men On Strike in a paper in Bermuda.  Together Instapundit and Dr. Helen are doing an incredible job of promoting conversations neither conservatives nor liberals want to have*.  However, as I’ve mentioned before I disagree with Dr. Helen on her characterization of men’s response to feminism.  She describes it as a strike, and I see the response as something more ominous.  I don’t think men are making purely logical cost/benefit calculations and deciding not to marry;  this would make sense if it were happening, but I don’t think it is what we are witnessing.  I think what we are starting to see is a culture changing in a delayed response to the message we have spent decades sending men.

Something else struck me when reading the article from Bermuda along with the comments;  framing the problem as one of “fairness” is an ineffective argument to conservatives and men in general, and it also sets us up to move in the wrong direction to find  a solution.

Why the fairness argument fails with conservatives and men in general.

We don’t tend to have much sympathy for men who complain about unfair treatment.  Whether you think we should have more sympathy or not is a separate question.  The reality is this is true.  Dr. Helen is quite extraordinary in her ability to empathize with men, but most of the audience we need to sway isn’t like her in this regard.  This is especially true for conservatives, who strongly believe that noble masculinity involves sacrifice, and that fairness is for women, not men.  You can see this with Tucker Carlson’s flippant response to Dr. Helen when she explains that men have no rights in marriage, and that marriage has been turned into a legal mechanism for women to steal from men**:

Well that’s all true, I mean I agree with that completely. But it still doesn’t absolve men of the responsibility to stop complaining about how the cards are against them and man up and become men– because you don’t become a man until you assume responsibility.

Dr. Helen appears truly astounded by Carlson’s lack of empathy in the video, but while Carlson is extreme in his flippancy his basic gut reaction isn’t unusual for either men or conservatives.  I don’t know that Carlson is in a position to be convinced away from his stance that the problem is weak men screwing feminism up, but at least some conservatives will be willing to listen.

For the conservatives who will listen, a much more effective argument is to point out that men are motivated by respect.  The reason we see men moving away from marriage is the role of husband, especially the role of married father, has gone from an honored role to one seen with great contempt.  This contempt isn’t limited to the feminists who envied men’s status.  This would be bad enough, but the contempt is actually worse among conservatives.  We don’t notice this because disrespecting honorable men is now so commonplace that it feels normal.  But if you look for it, you can see it all around you. Father’s Day is a day set aside to honor fathers, but pastors have instead turned it into a day to tear down fathers in front of their wives and children.  Christian movies are now more contemptuous of married men, especially married fathers, than secular movies are.  This same contempt for husbands is at the root of the rush to discredit Saeed Abedini while he languished in an Iranian prison, as well as the move by pastors to usurp the role of headship from the husbands in their congregation.

For those conservatives who will listen, the most effective response is to point out that we are getting the kind of men we demonstrate that we want.  We withhold honor from honorable men yet at the same time whine that men are hearing the unmistakable message we are sending.  Undermining, ridiculing, and casting aside husbands and fathers isn’t unfair, it is a sign of profound disrespect.  The men we respect instead are the sexy bad boys who can best navigate our post marriage sexual marketplace.  Conservatives, especially conservative men, who don’t like the change this has wrought in our culture need to man up and stop complaining, and get about the hard work of showing respect to the respectable and honoring the honorable.  This isn’t as pleasant and easy as posturing as the only real man in the room, nor is it as gratifying for most as supplicating to women.  But as men we often need to do difficult, risky, and unpleasant things, and for our time especially we need to find the courage and conviction to do this.

The wrong definition of the problem leads to the wrong solution.

The other problem with framing this as a matter of fairness is this naturally leads to an attempt to fix the family structure we have selected to replace marriage.  Fairness means more egalitarian divorce, child support laws, and custody arrangements.  It means replacing marriage with something more fair than the system we have already replaced marriage with.  This isn’t what we need to do.  What we need to do is restore marriage, not come up with a more palatable way to destroy families.

 

*Dr. Helen’s framing does seem to be the most effective way to start the conversation in the media.  It would be difficult to overstate what she has accomplished in this regard, and either way she is making the case as she sees it.  With this said, even for those who fundamentally see this as an issue of fairness, I think they will find it more effective when specifically addressing conservatives to focus on what we honor and respect as a society and the logical results we should expect from these messages.

**H/T innocentbystanderboston

This entry was posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Dr. Helen, Envy, Instapundit, Miserliness, The only real man in the room, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to We need to focus on respect instead of fairness.

  1. Pingback: We need to focus on respect instead of fairness. – Manosphere.com

  2. Pingback: We need to focus on respect instead of fairness. | Neoreactive

  3. I think as Christians we should not think in term of politics and conservatives, but rather think of the church as being the salt of the earth and the light to the world. The world is going to do what the world does, but the church does not and should not follow. To fix the problem in the church we need revival. For revival in the church we need to focus on doing and teaching what is right and true including wives respecting their husbands (Ephesians 5:33).

  4. Bdawg16 says:

    I read this book on my Kindle back before Christmas. I had never heard of Helen but came across a YouTube video of her on Fox News. It’s probably the one referred to in the topic above. I found her book to be refreshing from a man’s standpoint. Of course, the way she frames her thesis focuses more on the bad deal men get in marriage today as opposed to more serious issues like rebellion among women and the support they get from the blue pill evangelical community and society in general. I’m surprised she did not touch on that. Nevertheless, it was a good book of facts and something I shared with my two sons, who are 18 and 21. I wish I had read something like this prior to making a bad choice in marriage.

  5. Miserman says:

    Conservatives, especially conservative men, who don’t like the change this has wrought in our culture need to man up and stop complaining, and get about the hard work of showing respect to the respectable and honoring the honorable.

    And herein lies the rub. The definition of what is respectable and honorable has been thrust into very murky waters. For some, the Grand Personality is respectable and for others, the Barbarian Warrior. And still for others, the Alpha Rebel garners respect. The advantage of these forms of masculinity is that they directly push back against feminine influence and usurping. Simple Christian respect and honor is fodder for manipulation, hence phenomena like the complimentarian threesome.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tucker Carlson is a pretty good example of a clueless GenX White Knight. One would think that a man who was hit with a false accusation of rape would have learned from the experience…apparently not, though.

  7. Trad-Cons are only too willing to point and sputter the same ‘Man up and marry those sluts’ memes that serves the serves the FI:

    http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/gop-strategist-calls-trump-supporters

    I could give a damn about the politics, but the same tired tropes just keep getting recycled by the punditry.

  8. Spike says:

    Great work Dalrock. I would agree that what we see is “more ominous than a strike”.

    What we are seeing is what feminists are too stupid to understand: societies have degrees of separation.
    In the movie, “Six Degrees of Separation”, each of us is only 6 acquaintances away from everyone in the world. When a wife divorces her husband under no-fault, it has an effect on every male around her, including young boys. Those young boys grow up seeing their fathers, uncles, brothers (later), cousins and friends suffer under the new laws and the State, and they don’t want the same to happen to them. This idea becomes viral without the need of Internet to spread.
    I think too that Dr Helen and yourself see the same thing, except that Dr Helen sees it in perhaps 2 dimensions: statistics and her male patients from which she derives anecdotal evidence. You would see it in 3 dimensions – Statistics, particular cases (anecdotes such as Naghmeh Abedini) and the spiritual “Feminism with Christian Whitewash” in the institution that is supposed to hold the line against cultural Marxism. What is particularly disturbing about this latter dimension is that the same Institution – the Church – is foundational to both Western thought and rebuilding, but its’ Apostles are in denial about the problem.

  9. It isn’t as pleasant as Lift Chasing. Its still a quasi sexual strategy, though Lifts can be devoid of even having seen a photo of the woman, let alone seeing her IRL, touching her, hearing her voice, etc.

    I confess that now nearly 10 years back I proved this when I baited Lift Chaser men at CF by posing as a woman via sock puppet and giving them what they wanted feedback wise as they emasculated themselves, by one, more than the last one seeking the elixir of the cyber Lift…..
    done by the terabyte

  10. Gunner Q says:

    Even more important than respect is power. No sane man will accept responsibility for what he has no ability to control.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    I could give a damn about the politics, but the same tired tropes just keep getting recycled by the punditry.

    Tradcons and feminists have one playbook, shaming followed by force. It’s all they have, so of course the same tired tropes are recycled. We really need to start just laughing at them, making fun of their little obsessions, rather than bothering to engage them. Rhetoric not dialectic.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    GunnerQ
    Even more important than respect is power. No sane man will accept responsibility for what he has no ability to control.

    Let me disagree with you one bit about one word, “Authority”. “Power” is a word with a lot of semantic loading, “Oh, you want POWER OVER WOMEN, eh?”. “Authority” is not quite so loaded.

    We can surely agree that an imbalance of responsibility and authority never works in the long run. And as you, and Dalrock, and I and others have pointed out, in the modern world husbands have increased responsibility and severely reduced authority.

  13. enrique says:

    Rollo, I hear that quote today from that guy, calling the “Alt.right” Childless men who masturbate to Anime (a more ornate version of “mom’s basement/small dick” we usually hear) and I thought, gosh, I can’t wait till that makes it into the Manosphere and this guy gets Dox’d…forever, for that comment. That’s GOP strategist Rick Wilson.

    Btw, wonder how many kids he has?

    None of this will go away until men like us, and I practice this in my own life, completely belittle and ball bust such men, gift-wrapped (when you are able) to a challenge of who is more manly. Kept thinking upon hearing him (me with my tribe of kids), I’d love to run into him face to face and let him know I support lots of Alt-right stuff, he’s a bitch and I would prove it and post it to Youtube, if he accepted the challenge. We all know he’d call such things a ‘resort to violence’, while not grasping he was engaged in the same kind of reliance upon crude instincts with his comments.

    I saw the original of that Tucker clip a while back…same thing. When you run into a dude like that that in your personal life, make sure they “get” that you are publicly calling them out as a bitch, chump and simp. They will get all red and try to appeal to the women with that “surely you realize I’m the only REAL man in the room” stuff, Dalrock talks about…just keep chumping them.

    We have to police our own on this stuff.

  14. Novaseeker says:

    I hear that quote today from that guy, calling the “Alt.right” Childless men who masturbate to Anime (a more ornate version of “mom’s basement/small dick” we usually hear) and I thought, gosh, I can’t wait till that makes it into the Manosphere and this guy gets Dox’d…forever, for that comment. That’s GOP strategist Rick Wilson.

    They don’t have much of a clue what is hitting them right now, and they’re just shocked by it all. It’s amazing to see mainstream strategists talking like that — it reveals how over their heads the current situation is, how shocked they are by it, and how much they are slowly becoming aware that there is a large shadow politics on the right that is beginning to exert itself. Note, beginning. It isn’t about Trump at all, he’s just a sideshow to the real event, and that’s just dawning on them — they’re reacting hysterically, which only reveals their deep seated uneasiness and even fear of what they are seeing. Good. It’s about time.

    ——

    As for the OP, another great post. I agree that focusing on respect is more effective than fairness with conservatives, but to be honest I think either approach is likely to fail with most of them. The “man up, lump it, you’ll get respect when you earn it” approach dominates their thinking, and is reflected in the “women are to be respected because they are women, men are to be respected when they earn it with great difficulty, and then only very begrudgingly, in an expressly limited and temporary way, and with a deep, dark scowl of semi-disapproval mixed in for good measure”. Quite frankly, most of these guys really don’t like men very much and really prefer women. One of the reasons why the whole patriarchy conspiracy theory is such a joke, really — ahem, these are supposed to be the supporters of retrenching patriarchy, feminists. Sure doesn’t look that way to me.

  15. Emily says:

    Everyone wants respect. If being a husband and father is no longer respected, men will naturally gravitate towards other roles which our culture seems to honor. The celebrity culture has had a very negative impact on the family and the way husbands and fathers are viewed, I’m afraid. It’s pretty tough to fight against.

  16. @AR
    “Oh, you want POWER OVER WOMEN, eh?”

    Actually, no. The problem is the women got cursed way back when and part of the curse was hypergamy and the other part was the husbands are to RULE over them. It isn’t that I want power over women, it’s that as a husband I’m stuck with it. Call it power, authority, responsibility, it doesn’t matter, it’s a pain in the ass and it comes with the job.

  17. The other problem with framing this as a matter of fairness is this naturally leads to an attempt to fix the family structure we have selected to replace marriage. Fairness means more egalitarian divorce, child support laws, and custody arrangements. It means replacing marriage with something more fair than the system we have already replaced marriage with.

    Look at this and tell me it ain’t so

  18. enrique says:

    Empath, reminds me…almost all public service ads and the movement in general for “involved fathers” is simply a coded message to get that guy to voluntarily go down to the Child Support office and offer his blood and thumbprint and, “oh and here’s a handout on being ‘involved'”. It’s Soylent Green-get-your-tickets-to-Auschwitz ! stuff that anybody who has been through the grinder should immediately know is a headfake to get men into the system and pretend it’s for their own good, and the ‘good of the children’.

    At least feminists strongly support the pill for men. 🙂

  19. greyghost says:

    Trad-cons AKA Cuckservatives (I like that) are blue pill chumps made for feminism. Men better than them created a society and culture that allowed for their way of thinking. What makes cuckservatives well cuckservatives is the fact that they have no foundation or context for the values they espouse.

    Rock on Dalrock

  20. rugby11 says:

    A good read

  21. DeNihilist says:

    Emily, watched a movie on the weekend (rewrite – OK, some laughs, but quite bawdy) where a character states something like this, “pre-historic times, religion was filled with the sun and the moon, early civilization had the Greek and Roman gods, which was eventually overtaken by mono-theism. Today it is celebrities that are the gods”

    Sigh, seems so true.
    😦

  22. Looking Glass says:

    @enrique:

    The funnier bit about Rick Wilson’s statement is that American Anime fans skew massively to the Left. They’re far more insulted to be referenced to Trump. (Which is what they’ve been talking about.)

  23. Tom C says:

    Technically, in physics, power is defined as work divided by time. In other words it is a degree of control over future events.

  24. hoellenhund2 says:

    I started reading the Royal Gazette article. I’m at the 3rd sentence, and it’s definitely BS:

    Many women cannot find “Mr Right”, even though they are looking hard to find him.

  25. Boxer says:

    NSFW

    Re: the degenerate cuckservative Rick Wilson… His son runs a degenerate website where he discusses sodomizing underage girls and selling them into sexual slavery. I didn’t believe this at first, so I spent a couple of hours on due diligence. It appears to be the legitimate produce of Rick Wilson’s son.

    http://sheekyforums.com/thread/61548071/politics/rick-wilsons-son-is-a-pimp-let-the-press-know.html

    Trashy cuck Rick Wilson is blocking people on twitter who bring this up. Looks to be a very embarrassing revelation about an incredibly dysfunctional and perverse family (surprise, surprise).

    Boxer

  26. hoellenhund2 says:

    The funnier bit about Rick Wilson’s statement is that American Anime fans skew massively to the Left.

    I’m not certain about that, although it seems likely. This Wilson character probably just wanted to come up with something that generates sufficient disgust among soccer moms and tradcon cucks like himself, and anime was his choice at that moment.

  27. hoellenhund2 says:

    It’s amazing to see mainstream strategists talking like that — it reveals how over their heads the current situation is, how shocked they are by it, and how much they are slowly becoming aware that there is a large shadow politics on the right that is beginning to exert itself. Note, beginning. It isn’t about Trump at all, he’s just a sideshow to the real event, and that’s just dawning on them — they’re reacting hysterically, which only reveals their deep seated uneasiness and even fear of what they are seeing.

    I find it rather predictable instead of amazing. A couple of years ago I predicted here or on some other blog that the mainstream narrative about Peter Pans, the “crisis of masculinity” and the lack of “good men” will get so much media exposure that it’ll eventually find its way into the 2016 election campaign. I didn’t really put much thought into it. But now, things seem to be pointing in that direction.

    It was always obvious that the reaction will be hysterical and senseless. It isn’t even due to these cunts hating men and liking women. It’s simply that they are non-thinking, comformist bourgeoise shitbags, typically scummy middle-aged men. I suppose all of us know at least one or two. This Wilson cuck probably lives in some comfy suburban neighborhood, completely divorced from the everyday reality of the USA, and completely uninterested in it. He’s so solipsistic he cannot conceive of a society where the average young man isn’t successfully manipulated into becoming a useful idiot for the system who works as hard as he can, gets married and sires children, all because he’s promised he’ll be respected as a man if he behaves that way. He’s afraid and uneasy alright, but I’m sure he doesn’t even care about the future of his society or the state of masculinity, he’s just annoyed by the prospect that there won’t be enough male pack mules around to finance the various social services he expects to use in his old age. And I certainly hope he reaches an old age, because then he’ll maybe see the collapse of the society and the shitty misandrist culture he’s invested in.

  28. Patrick says:

    “We withhold honor from honorable men yet at the same time whine that men are hearing the unmistakable message we are sending.”

    “We make men without chests, and expect of them virtue and enterprise…” (CS Lewis).

    I think Dr. Helen is trying to make a less-unviable form of feminism, that’s all. Like Zippy always says she’s trying to have a nice, safe, declawed version of feminism (which can’t actually exist).

  29. Pingback: We need to focus on respect instead of fairness. | Reaction Times

  30. feeriker says:

    Many women cannot find “Mr Right”, even though they are looking hard to find him.

    Once again, we need to remind ourselves of who “Mr. Right” is for today’s entitled skank: a billionaire Brad Pitt lookalike handyman who is attracted to selfish, shallow, fat, ugly, bitchy juvenile harpies upon whom he’ll gladly shower endless money and gifts while expecting nothing in return.

    Gosh, I wonder why they’re having so much trouble with the hunt?

  31. JDG says:

    The wrong definition of the problem leads to the wrong solution.

    The other problem with framing this as a matter of fairness is this naturally leads to an attempt to fix the family structure we have selected to replace marriage.

    Yep! Dr. Helen, for all her good intentions, is a feminist (of the egalitarian flavor I believe). She sees the world through a feminist lens as does most of western society. Therefore her solutions will be feminist (egalitarian) solutions.

    Egalitarianism is a pipe dream that does not take into account the existence of the Almighty and His design for Mankind and the differences between men and women in the context of this REALITY.

  32. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    Agreed on Dr. Helen; but, she’s a feminist in the way that many MRAs are feminists. Lots of them are overly naïve people who bought into the idea of equality, and are now shocked by the disparity. Mind you, classes on feminism at big universities feed this delusion a lot. You go to a faggy “gender studies” course and you’ll never find anyone hating on men. They’ll seem quite sincere when they talk about men getting screwed over in family court, or dying in the workplace, but insist that all these problems will be solved when (you guessed it) the National Organization for Women gets five quintillion more dollars and the ability to write laws.

    Egalitarianism is a pipe dream that does not take into account the existence of the Almighty and His design for Mankind and the differences between men and women in the context of this REALITY.

    Right. What the naïve equality feminists never address is the fact that most men don’t want to whine about their victimhood, or live in a world where they watch kids and their wife works. They just want a fair shake at having a family, and they’ll gladly work the dangerous job in return for not facing the prospect of losing their life’s work the minute some third-rate woman decides she’s not happy. We aren’t wired equally, and that’s not going to change.

    Boxer

  33. Darwinian Arminian says:

    I’m all for respecting men, but I somehow doubt that this frame will work either. Unless you allow the men themselves to define what respect is to them, female solipsism is going to co-opt the term for its own uses. The surrounding culture (and the church with it) will define respect as what they think men should want and what they should respond to. The men who then fail to value or strive for the lackluster rewards they offer will only be proving their own unworthiness.

    For a great example of this in action, consider the example from Rollo’s “Saving the Best” story. Back in the day, this woman enthusiastically offered a long string of sexual favors to an even longer list of male lovers. But now she’s cleaned herself up, mended her ways, and found herself a “good man” who commits to her unconditionally. A wife in a scenario like this is likely going to say her supportive, dependable husband is now the man that she respects the most, and why not? She’s wearing his ring and his name, living under his roof, and generally merging her life into his in a way she didn’t for any of her previous lays and one-night stands. Her wild days are in the past, and now her husband gets to have her when she’s new, improved and “respectable”.

    The husband? What he’ll see is how tepidly and coldly she offers him her body today after the many years that she gave it so freely to lovers she barely knew, as he eventually comes to the realization that he married “a slut that fucks like a prude.” Should he feel that he’s being given respect? I know I could never see it that way; I’m pretty sure many more men will concur. But the wife will certainly tell herself that she’s giving it. And the modern age is already in the business of convincing the husband to go along with her definition too.

    Me do indeed value respect, but that respect will always be worthless if it isn’t on their terms.

  34. Looking Glass says:

    @hoellenhund2:

    I know the anime scene well enough, and it does skew pretty far to the left (because the young skew that way due to indoctrination). But it’s also fairly massively anti-SJW. Several of the writers at ANN get pretty constantly burned by their comments for this. To the point that they’ve pretty much bottled up that tendency.

    The Leftist + Anti-SJW aspect isn’t too surprising about the fan-base. In the West, beyond Pokemon, it really is built off people that spent a lot of time getting the anime illegally. So it engenders are fairly heavy anti-authority/pro-Japan ethos. Which is, occasionally, hilarious to watch in real time.

  35. Looking Glass says:

    As for Glenn & Helen Reynolds, they are most definitely allies. But they’re not “plugged-in” yet. Glenn has been trending our direction for a long while now, so appreciate the help but keep pushing them towards the place they need to end up. (He’s linked Heartise, Vox Day and Dalrock over the years. And he’s very much a central hub of “alt.right” and Libertarian thought at the moment.)

    Also, Glenn’s 2nd Amendment work was invaluable to Heller, for which he should always have our gratitude.

  36. The Question says:

    “You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”
    – Morpheus, “The Matrix”

    No doubt there is a need to focus on respect and not fairness, but even then I would argue that what we’re fighting isn’t naivete or good intentions on the part of these people.

    Deep down they know what the score is, but they have invested so much of their life, the degree of ego-investment is so great, that they will fight and die on this hill no matter how the argument is framed. They will watch everything they think they love collapse and fall apart and insist until the very end that it would all stop if “peter pan boys” would just man up, because to do otherwise would require them to admit that many of the decisions they made in their lives, the totality of their life in fact, was centered around falsehoods. It would force them to admit they were deceived and have been played for a fool.

    I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not betting against myself on this one.

  37. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    […] I agree that focusing on respect is more effective than fairness with conservatives, but to be honest I think either approach is likely to fail with most of them. The “man up, lump it, you’ll get respect when you earn it” approach dominates their thinking, and is reflected in the “women are to be respected because they are women, men are to be respected when they earn it with great difficulty, and then only very begrudgingly, in an expressly limited and temporary way, and with a deep, dark scowl of semi-disapproval mixed in for good measure”. Quite frankly, most of these guys really don’t like men very much and really prefer women. […]
    Novaseeker (January 20, 2016 at 7:05 pm)”

    There’s a related issue. Threshold might be a better word. As in, one of the borderlands between RedPillLand and BluePillLand.

    It’s this: Why would a young man (who isn’t an SJW, but isn’t anything in particular, at least not consciously) want the “respect” of Cuckservatives?

    That, I think, is the epiphany, the moment of change: the awareness on the part of the young man, that the opinion of a Cuckservative has less value than a bucket of warm ratsh_t, as at least you could use the ratsh_t as fertilizer in the tomato patch.

         “Man Up and Marry Those Sluts!”

         “Why?”

         “To earn My Respect[tm].”

         “Why should I care about whether or not some random @$$hole ‘respects’ me?”

    And that’s it. Hence the uneasy incipient terror by the defenders of the misandrist “values” of BluePillLand: all they have is that social bullying tool.

    Reason isn’t on their side, facts aren’t on their side, neither the future nor the past are on their side. And the moment a critical mass of young men cease paying any attention to their pretense of Moral Authority, they’re done.

    My Respect[tm] really only matters if the person offering it is in some way reciprocally respected. What reason is there to respect an Ideological Feminist or a Cuckservative?

    To be a Legitimizer, you have to earn and keep Legitimacy yourself. The whole point of this Cultural Transformation (Red Pill, Manosphere, etc.) is that it delegitimizes anything that hates and/or parasitizes off men.

    More: how much credibility (in the long run) can shaming self-preserving behaviors retain, when those shaming young men who won’t destroy their own lives to justify the self-destructiveness of young women, insistently object to the shaming (“slut-shaming”) of self-destructive behaviors?

    Some time ago, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. gave a speech in Washington, D.C. You may have heard of it.

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

    That’s the legitimizing factor there, isn’t it: “the content of their character”.

    What is the content of the character of a Cuckservative?

  38. jack says:

    Dalrock-

    Brilliant reframe, the idea of painting the tradcons as the “whiners”.

    I see this as a very effective launch point. Men are not “stepping up” because there is nothing to step up to.

    If we make it about fairness, the white-knightey tradcons only see this as another opportunity to display manly”heroism” against adversity.

    When you frame it as “why would a man enter a relationship where he is guaranteed to be disrespected”? it is hard to argue against. It also puts them on the defensive.

  39. Dalrock, thank you for giving me the kudos on this topic.

  40. I’ve been attending a Baptist Church with my fiance. Because she didn’t want to feel left out, we joined their Young Couples’ Ministry.

    It’s something like a cell group for young couples (and I, at 40, is the oldest among them). The group is always co-ed, i.e., no separation between husbands and wives in gender-specific groups during sharing and prayers. It is being led by a pastor (who was ordained last year) and his wife. There were a few times when there were the usual self-deprecating humour and jokes directed at the men/husbands during sharing. And in the recent session when the issue of how couples should deal with conflicts between them, Ephesians 5:21-22 was mentioned and parts of a book about marriage (can’t remember the title) were dismissed because it was published in the 1930s and of its emphasis that a woman should keep home while the husband goes out to work.

    In some ways, I’m done a bit of “inoculation” with the pastor on very basic truths — that more respect should be accorded to the men during all sessions and more spaces as well as times for men to be together without their wives (who should be in a separate group led by an older woman). I sensed some initial resistance on the pastor’s part because of the insistence that a couple should be together.

    I discussed with him about other stuff, e.g., the phenomenon that there were fewer men than women in church congregations, “husbands desire respect from wives and wives desire the love of their husbands” and the lack of spaces where young men can learn about leadership and headship. To be fair, he acknowledged my points and was open to hearing them. Again, I could see a bit of a paradigm shift in his thinking but I believe it is a long way to go before he could see that Eph 5:21-22 should not be dismissed as being culture-specific for the Ephesus church in the 1st Century.

  41. feeriker says:

    When you frame it as “why would a man enter a relationship where he is guaranteed to be disrespected”? it is hard to argue against. It also puts them on the defensive.

    And the “defensive” answer of the typical Tradcuckservative to this rhetorical question is usually just a regurgitation of “man-up-and-quitcherfuckincomplainin,” sometimes accompanied by “the continuation of western civilization depends on it.”

  42. “man-up-and-quitcherfuckincomplainin,” sometimes accompanied by “the continuation of western civilization depends on it.”

    That is what Dennis Prager said a week ago at NRO. And Mr Short-Man’s-Syndrome was the first to call Dennis out on it.

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-dennis-prager-unintentionally-hurts.html

    Prager is correct in saying that Western Civilization depends on men manning-up, but that is because what he can’t say is that Western Civilization depends on women forgoing feminism.

  43. mrteebs says:

    Dalrock is spot on again: it is about respect, not fairness.

    Males figure out that life in general – and unbalance between the sexes in particular – is not fundamentally about “fairness” sometime around kindergarden. And, they generally accept this state of affairs, their psyches craving primarily not fairness, but respect, honor, and admiration for willingly – like Atlas – bearing the weight of the world. They thus exchange fairness for something they value more highly: respect.

    And as such, Atlas is beginning to shrug. Not for want of fairness, for he knew going in that it was not fair at all. No, he is shrugging because none of the aforementioned respect and its close cousins are forthcoming. He will endure much, but he will not abide a chronic disrespect in which his role is devalued, mocked, and extracted from him under compulsion by a woman who gives nothing in return yet insists her mere presence skews the deal wildly in his favor.

    And this is why the MRAs will never win the battle. They are focused on treating a symptom, not the root. Ironically, it is MRAs – not feminists – that are fixated with achieving equality; while “conservative” feminists use the same egalitarian rhetoric (which is increasingly indistinguishable from complementarian rhetoric) and thus serve merely as useful idiots paving the road for die uberwoman to drive on while der untermensch quarry the rocks.

    It all stems from this mistaken notion – cheerfully and unceasingly dispensed by the church – that men loving their wives is always unconditional, while women respecting their husbands is always conditional, lest he abuse his position.

  44. Sean says:

    Many women cannot find “Mr Right”, even though they are looking hard to find him.

    Yeah, don’t mention this part to your church elders unless you want a fight (written or Matthew 18) on your hands. Trust me, they think this is Gospel instead of BS.

  45. Hugh says:

    I read and enjoyed Helen Smith’s book. She is most definitely an ally, and I strongly disagree with the whiners above who nitpick about her not being 100% pure red-pill/Christian/whatever. That’s rubbish, we need people who can write well and in a way that appeals to the general public. Dr. Smith has that ability and we should be glad and grateful for that.

    Having said that, in this post Dalrock takes the ball handed off by Helen and runs it another 30 yards up the field: Brilliant! I’ll return to this post time and time again.

  46. Dave says:

    Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter (Ecclestiases 12:13):

    It all stems from this mistaken notion – cheerfully and unceasingly dispensed by the church – that men loving their wives is always unconditional, while women respecting their husbands is always conditional, lest he abuse his position.

  47. Micha Elyi says:

    When Rick Wilson, identified by MSNBC* as a “GOP strategist” (whatever that means) speaks of “childless men who masturbate to Anime” he’s just doing what some people here are doing by labeling others “cuckservative”. Hey people, you’re helping neither yourself nor your cause by repeating that schoolboyish taunt. Rather, it costs you respect. Respect is hard to earn so mind how you spend it.

    * like CNN, a place that values The Narrative above accurate identification and honest reporting.

  48. Miserman says:

    An anecdote:

    I witnessed a family in which a fifteen-year-old girl had a sixteen-year-old boyfriend who attempted to make out with her. The girl’s mother and grandmother were not angry that the man had done something wrong or immoral, but that he had disrespected both the girl. Because he had disrespected her, the relationship was ended. At the same time, I witnessed an utter lack of respect toward the girl’s father..

    So women do value respect when it’s given to women and not men.

  49. “What we need to do is restore marriage, not come up with a more palatable way to destroy families.” Amen! And respecting masculine authority at the grass roots, not just where men are leading congregations is part of that project. Each influences the other. I think you’re doing a great job. I’ve been thinking similar things for the 26 years since I became Christian aged 24. Keep thinking aloud! God bless you.

    [D: Thank you. Welcome.]

  50. enrique says:

    Boxer, following the Roosh/Forney operational strategy of Google-results negging, I am surprised no one (yet), including Forney has written an article titled:

    Is GOP Cuckerton Rick Wilson jealous of basement-dwelling masturbating Anime fans still getting more sex than him, even though most of them are Sanders’ supporters in reality?

    #GOPRickWilsonsProjection

  51. PokeSalad says:

    When Rick Wilson, identified by MSNBC* as a “GOP strategist” (whatever that means) speaks of “childless men who masturbate to Anime” he’s just doing what some people here are doing by labeling others “cuckservative”. Hey people, you’re helping neither yourself nor your cause by repeating that schoolboyish taunt. Rather, it costs you respect. Respect is hard to earn so mind how you spend it.

    If he appeared on MSNBC in any capacity, he’s already forfeited any respect, for ever.

  52. desiderian says:

    Novaseeker,

    “One of the reasons why the whole patriarchy conspiracy theory is such a joke, really”

    A situation where a few men (with contempt for men as a whole) enjoy inordinate power over the society (including its women) would still count as a Patriarchy according to the theory, and does in fact describe present reality tolerably well.

    The problem is the misbehavior/illegitimacy/paucity* of the existing patriarchs, not the existence of Patriarchy itself.

    * – too many Indians, nor enough Chiefs.

  53. DrTorch says:

    For the conservatives who will listen, a much more effective argument is to point out that men are motivated by respect.

    The bigger challenge is defining conservative. That means different things to different people. It’s so poorly defined that it’s nearly worthless IMO.

    So I don’t believe there is any single effective argument for conservatives. Heck, it’s a big enough struggle getting Christians to accept arguments straight out of the Scriptures, it’s far worse trying to influence conservatives.

  54. Yeah well, Forney had rape allegation questions he never answered, so Forney is suspect.

  55. The ladies can’t find Mr. Right, but they do have this:
    http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/01/19/mpls-cuddle-party-chapter-teaches-communication-boundaries/#comments

    Aren’t they lovely? Makes a respected man just want to jump on the pile, no?

  56. Anchorman says:

    Yeah well, Forney had rape allegation questions he never answered, so Forney is suspect.

    I can’t tell if you’re serious (about his need to answer them) or not.

  57. Caligula says:

    “We need to focus on respect instead of fairness.” BUT if/when you’re talking about law, well, no law can mandate “respect,” but, law can and must be made reasonably fair.

    People (Christians as well as non-Christians) respond to incentives, including perverse incentives. Yes, there are huge cultural forces encouraging women to divorce for light or transient reasons (or, sometimes, for no reason at all beyond whim), BUT if the consequences from doing so were often negative there likely would be a whole lot more introspection and less frivolous divorce.

    For “family law” (as it is called) influences ongoing marriages as well as those in or past dissolution. By so favoring women in divorce, it encourages women to threaten divorce in order to prevail in marital disagreements, and this in itself poisons all too many marriages. And also discourages men from asserting themselves (let alone asserting authority) within their marriages for fear that by doing so they risk losing both the marriage and the ability to be resident father to their children.

    Focusing on respect remains a worthwhile goal, BUT, it can’t be “instead of fairness,” for the lack of fairness in “family law” will continue to poison many marriages (and prevent the creation of many more) so long as it is not corrected.

    ________________
    “You don’t become a man until you assume responsibility” reflects the age-old truth that men always retain a burden of performance, and society has never much respected men who refuse or are unable to assume these burdens. Yet as others will point out, it is often impossible to assume responsibility without associated authority (and those who try will at least be frustrated, and perhaps vulnerable to serious mental disorders if they persist in attempting what cannot be accomplished).

  58. thedeti says:

    “I’m all for respecting men, but I somehow doubt that this frame will work either. Unless you allow the men themselves to define what respect is to them, female solipsism is going to co-opt the term for its own uses. The surrounding culture (and the church with it) will define respect as what they think men should want and what they should respond to. The men who then fail to value or strive for the lackluster rewards they offer will only be proving their own unworthiness.”

    This is a key point. Riffing off this for a minute: The reason respect vis a vis fairness isn’t going to resonate, and why “men deserve respect for being respectable and honor for being honorable”, is because women and conservatives view “respect” and “fairness” as pretty much interchangeable concepts.

    A woman deserves “respect” merely for existing, and because to her, that is “fair”. If she is not being treated with respect, that is not fair; and conversely, it’s only fair that she be given respect. But to men, respect is earned (unless you’re a woman, in which case you’re given “respect” for existing). Men don’t respect other men who haven’t earned that respect. Women (and now, most conservatives) have little concept of this, frankly.

  59. Dr Torch….too right

    I wish I could say that to keep talking about -the conservatives- would result in conservative becoming a malleable target representing whatever the one complaining wants it to be, but its too late. The term, used in the context as here, is a blank faced voodoo doll or a generic effigy, to be poked with pins or hanged and burned for myriad reasons, few having a true focus on the mens issue based grievances.

    Poked and burned by:

    -liberals piling on (savoring schadenfreude)
    -too cool for school crowd who evasively don’t wanna be understandable ideologically
    -peacocking conservatives who vomit fluent AMOGish and not much else
    -self proclaimed Doctors of Philosophy, from the locker room where they compare the lengths of
    their…….obscure quotes
    -untrained psychologists trying to get credentialed based on OJT

    Sigh…..not sure I have a suggestion about how to avoid same, because spending lots of time wrangling about definitions is futile folly

    Dalrock’s post is excellent notwithstanding my constant quibbling about conservatives because of
    how he quietly drops even further into the weeds of relational reality versus perception and how self defeating the conservatives are even while being blissfully unaware. These men create a better wall of artificial reality than women do because its created only once and reinforced with bars made of cognitive dissonance whereas women create realities that are like sheets hanging from a clothes line, billowing and undulating as needed.

    Bad Segue

    This quote : “The rise of women has not threatened men; it has irritated them.” from the Bermuda periodical made me chuckle.

  60. @anchorman “I can’t tell if you’re serious (about his need to answer them) or not.”

    He posted the article and then refused answer about whether he was sleeping with her. When you post the accusation, you should at least answer the question, you’re obligated at that point. Everyone that asked the question got banned from his site. He’s like a woman that wants everything both ways.

  61. thedeti says:

    But for men, “fairness” and “respect” are two very different things. “fairness” is a concept derived from “justice” and has nothing to do with respect. “Fairness” has to do with equality under the law and before other people, dealing with basic fundamental rights.

    To men, “respect” is very different. Respect is given only to those who earn it, and only concomitantly to the amount earned. Men who aren’t respectable get little respect. Men who are very respectable get much respect. “Fairness” doesn’t work like that – everyone gets the same “fairness”, in the same measure. “Respect” is distributed according to what you’ve earned.

    Women don’t see it this way — fairness and respect are pretty much the same thing to them. And a lot of men (most notably MRAs and the current crop of conservatives) have the same view, that fairness and respect are interchangeable.

  62. is because women and conservatives view “respect” and “fairness” as pretty much interchangeable concepts.

    Nah, not so much. Trace this particular cord back to the wall and find the -everyone gets a trophy- crowd, which has led to kids growing up and subscribing to such idiocy as the Adult Preschool crap. Not so many conservatives in the black hole where that star collapsed.

  63. Johnny Caustic says:

    I’d like to add another reframe.

    Tucker Carlson was half right when he said “you don’t become a man until you assume responsibility.” But half right is dangerously wrong.

    You don’t become a man until you assume POWER and responsibility.

    They have to be balanced. A man who takes power without responsibility is a tyrant, of course. But a man who takes responsibility while renunciating power is an ineffectual, pathetic wuss. (Of course, men with neither are just contemptible.)

    Men are being taught that it’s virtuous to take responsibility while giving away power…and that’s wrong. We need to teach men to take power in equal measure as they take responsibility.

    Men are reluctant to take power not only because they’re taught not to and scolded for doing so, but also because they themselves aren’t aware that taking power leads to better relationships, stronger families, and happier women. We need to teach men that they are better leaders than women, and for that reason, it is women’s interests for their men to have some power over them. (Which is one reason why men deserve respect.)

  64. Johnny Caustic says:

    @Anonymous Reader: “Let me disagree with you one bit about one word, “Authority”. “Power” is a word with a lot of semantic loading, “Oh, you want POWER OVER WOMEN, eh?”. “Authority” is not quite so loaded.”

    When we’re talking to women and pastors, yes; use “authority”. When we’re talking to young men and each other, use “power”. When you’re trying to push the pendulum back from an extreme, sometimes you have to club people on the ear.

  65. Robert What? says:

    As many have observed, in the new millennium women are to have complete freedom of action with no consequences, while men are still bound to their historical responsibilities. What’s more, according to Carlson, men are supposed to “shut up and like it, slave!”

  66. Micha Elyi says:

    “Fairness” is a sports term. Fairness is not the same as justice, it’s not even the same as justice tempered with mercy. Fairness is very subjective, much more so than justice.

    I agree that conservative folk will be more likely to respect the justice of respect than fairness. Building an argument for justice on fairness is building on sand; when females begin whining “That’s not fair!” (fair for them, of course, men be damned–boys too) they expect everything to shift and slide over to their favor.

  67. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    Micha Elyi says:
    January 21, 2016 at 5:03 am

    When Rick Wilson, identified by MSNBC* as a “GOP strategist” (whatever that means) speaks of “childless men who masturbate to Anime” he’s just doing what some people here are doing by labeling others “cuckservative”. Hey people, you’re helping neither yourself nor your cause by repeating that schoolboyish taunt. Rather, it costs you respect. Respect is hard to earn so mind how you spend it.

    Micha: your equivocative analysis is at first glance appealing, and since you are at the end of the day just advocating “consistency” (or, complementarily, a lack of hypocrisy), you can’t be faulted for that. However, I am pretty sure you are mistaken in what you write, above.

    There are two dimensions to what I think you are overlooking. I can’t think of good names for them (maybe other commenters here can), but just for the purpose of conversation let me call them insult/inference and flippancy/seriousness.

    Insult/Inference:

    The “logical fallacy of Ad Hominem arguments” and the related “logical fallacy of Poisoning The Well” consist, in their simplest and most abstract form, of arguing “my debating opponent is a bad person [insert details of alleged character flaw here], and therefore his line of reasoning should not persuade you, O audience.”

    So, in your analysis or criticism of what is going on here, you are inviting us to compare Rick Wilson’s disparagement of people who advocate certain points of view (which he does not like, and does not want his audience to agree with) as “childless men who masturbate to Anime” [which is, inarguably, is an argument Ad Hominem], to use here and elsewhere of the term “Cuckservative”, as if it were being used in the same way (i.e., as an argument Ad Hominem also).

    Except, it isn’t an argument Ad Hominem, because it isn’t a claim about being made about people who advocate certain points of view, to dissuade some audience or other from agreeing them. Rather, I suggest to you, “Cuckservative” is an inference. Not an argument; a conclusion. Here are people who claim to be “Conservative”, and in particular demand money, prestige and power as rewards for how “Conservative” they are, who consistently and at every turn sell out any position, value, policy proposal or fiscal initiative that might actually be “Conservative” [by whatever measure].

    It can’t be too surprising that Democrats will do everything they can to keep illegal immigrants within America’s borders: they need their votes. Many Democrats and SJW types are quite shameless about this. And while the open advocacy of the violation of the electoral laws of the United States (and the various individual States & cities) may be appalling, the Dems & SJWs are not two-faced about it.

    But, how about those Establishment Republicans™, hunh? They will aggressively advocate and vote for *all* measures, short of those that actual addressing the basic issue of America’s immigration laws not being enforced.

    Or, for all the “Conservative” rhetoric from Congressional “Cuckservatives” [for, we need a name for them] as against the Democrat’s outrageous budgetary profligacy and orgiastic fiscal irresponsibility, when’s the last time they actually voted down (or by serious amendments watered down) a Democratic budget?

    See, they occupy the “Conservative” position, as in insist on being recognized as the Public Face of Conservatism; and they demand the rewards [demand money, prestige and power] for their “hard work on behalf of” — … , but at all critical decision points [public persuasion, legislative voting, etc.], they always — always — stab the Conservative option in the back.

    I’ve seen two explanations for the origin of the term “Cuckservative”, and in fact both ultimately come from the same place: (1) Cuckold + Conservative; and, (2) Cuckoo + Conservative. There they sit in the Conservative nest, squawking and sh_tting, demanding to be fed by the metaphorical Conservative Parent Bird (which is the rank and file who donate the money and pound in the lawn-signs, etc.), but they didn’t actually hatch from a metaphorical “Conservative Egg” — they are impostors.

    But, unlike the Democrats & SJWs, who aren’t two faced about sabotaging — let’s be frank here — civilization and its buttresses (family, military, fiscal responsibility, church/Church, prudence and other virtues, common decency, etc.), the Cuckservatives are two faced about it.

    So, the argument (by contrast with Rick Wilson’s bullcr@p intellectual laziness and factual dishonesty) isn’t that Conservatives childishly call them Cuckservatives because we want everyone else to disrespect and therefore ignore them.

    It’s that we have made the (correct) inference that they are back-stabbing, two-faced b@stards who are Alien Birds in the Conservative Nest, no matter how loudly they squawk to the contrary, and we need a name for them, in order that we may have a noun to use so we can talk about them, and preferably a disparaging one, in order that we may call them out and condemn them every time we discuss their sorry, grandiose, back-stabbing b@stardly selves.

    Therefore, your appeal for moral and rhetorical consistency notwithstanding, “childless men who masturbate to Anime” is an insult, but “Cuckservative” is an inference.

    It’s the exact opposite of Ad Hominem: not, “they are bad people, ignore what they say and what they suggest be done”; but rather, “pay attention to the stark contrast between what they say (about how committed they are, on behalf of Conservatism) and what they actually do (on behalf of Conservatism): these are bad people”.

    Flippancy/Seriousness:

    When Cuckservative “GOP strategist” Rick Wilson speaks of “childless men who masturbate to Anime”, he is deliberately choosing to not have to address certain ideas/proposals/principles/etc. with actual, you know, thought and argument, and is deliberately choosing to instead make a cheap shot.

    He is being flippant.

    When a Conservative like me calls an @$$hat like Rick Wilson a “Cuckservative”, I am being deadly serious: he’s a Cuckoo in the Conservative nest, a political parasite who is a worse Enemy to Conservatism than any “out” Cultural Marxist could ever hope to be.

    ===

    So there you have it: “childless men who masturbate to Anime” — flippant insult; “Cuckservative” — Serious Inference.

    Just sayin’

    Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment (“yac-yac”)
    Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)

  68. Micha Elyi says:

    Yac-yac, the childish term of insult you are defending is no “Serious Inference”. Your essay gave that away, in all those words you didn’t even bother to define it.

  69. ray says:

    Well-said. And I’m glad to hear Helen Smith get a cheer. I enjoy her page and she also is a very effective personal speaker. I’ve seen her Shut Them Up. It’s fun to watch!

    Few Americans, male or female, have defended boys, fatherhood, and masculinity over the years with Helen’s consistency and fervor. I hear people calling themselves Christian saints or pastors or ministers, lacking her love of truth and dedication to Father’s business. If they really were Christians then they’d be ashamed that this woman has to do their job for them. Clean up their mess. I’m not sure what Church these folks think they belong to. If you haven’t been looking after the sons of the nation during this duress then you haven’t been looking after eternity, yours or anyone else’s.

  70. Kaminsky says:

    To Hugh and Ray,

    Yeah I’m a Helen Smith fan too. I read “Men On Strike” and don’t understand why some others here would quibble at her as far as being feminist. I think she is very clearly cut off from the FI mindset and is very clean-minded and consistent in her support of men.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Micha Elyi
    Yac-yac, the childish term of insult you are defending is no “Serious Inference”.

    Why is that? Because you say so, eh?

    Your essay gave that away, in all those words you didn’t even bother to define it.

    Suggest you read more carefully, it is a pretty concise exposition of the term, possible origin, and there is a clear definition.

    Perhaps you do not want to understand, for some reason? Maybe the word “cuckservative” stings more than the word “hypocrite” and triggers an emotional response in you that shuts down rationatilty?

  72. The Question says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “Maybe the word “cuckservative” stings more than the word “hypocrite”…..

    The word “cuckservative” more of a sting because it is a powerful one-word assault on a man’s lack of the four tactical virtues of masculinity; strength, courage, mastery, and honor. A cuckservative is not strong enough to prevent himself from being cuckolded, he cowardly avoids confronting the true perpetrator of the cuckolding out of fear, he’s unconsciously incompetent (lack of mastery) about his pro-active cuckolding of himself and other men like him or can’t do anything about it even if he is aware, and he has no honor because he backstabs the very men he claims to defend while placating those he says he opposes.

    But what makes it sting so strong is the contempt it demonstrates for the person. Telling a man he is a coward is one thing. You can say it with the intent of helping them. Calling them a cuckservative is to mock their cowardice.

    Carlson’s reply to Dr. Helen summarizes the mindset of a cuckservative. She demonstrates all the injustices in the world against men in Western Civilization, and all he can muster in his craven response is “yes, you’re being cuckolded. Now shut up, stop resisting it and just deal with it because we’re too cowardly to do anything.”

    The best part of it is that there is not much one can say to it if they fit the definition.

  73. Pingback: Incentives | Christianity and the manosphere

  74. Morgan says:

    Conservatives suffer from the opposite of the “no true scotsman” fallacy, the “all true men” fallacy. All true men earn respect. All true men don’t get divorced. All true men don’t need a prenup. All true men marry sluts and live happily ever after. All true men have satisfied, happy wives. Wife left you after you lost your job? Must not have been a true man. Divorce raped? Must not have been a true man. Sluts whine about you not committing to them? Must not be a true man. In this world, they can’t possibly have empathy for real suffering men, because real men don’t suffer, at least not true men.

  75. @The Question:”Carlson’s reply to Dr. Helen summarizes the mindset of a cuckservative. She demonstrates all the injustices in the world against men in Western Civilization, and all he can muster in his craven response is “yes, you’re being cuckolded. Now shut up, stop resisting it and just deal with it because we’re too cowardly to do anything.” The best part of it is that there is not much one can say to it if they fit the definition.”

    Ya cut to the nut of it, T.Q, excellent takes. Just to take it a tad further, I’m guessing, no, I’m certain, Carlson has fear of his bosses, women at work, on Twitter, maybe he’s even cucked his politics and interest as a man out to his wife. He sits and nods and agrees with the premise that men are simply screwed in this society as regards respect in every corner and every venue. He agreed with the woman to the letter. Then he told us, “F*ck you, man up”. His is a well-feathered nest, he’s terrified to risk it and he knows who built it for him. He is a coward of the lowest order. And that means he too must bow, scrape and bend over to women and society and although his rewards are a tad more tangible, he is a cuck and knows it. The lowest order of his cowardice is, he advises others to follow the path. He too is screwed and I hope he looks in the mirror forevermore with less respect for himself.

    Again, good takes, TQ..

  76. Kaminsky says:

    Morgan nails it. It’s the conundrum that can’t be reckoned with and it’s why I think this crap is nowhere near being over. I have some people in my life dogging me to get married. My response is along the lines of “Sorry, it’s not a fair contract.” Not a groundbreaking take here, ha ha but that’s not my full point. The spoken or unspoken reaction is exactly what you say. “A true man would keep his woman satisfied” therefore the divorce wouldn’t happen. Or, “A true man would have won love that is so far up in the clouds, above talks of ‘contracts.'”

    Thanks for that crystalline explanation.

  77. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/01/24) – The Reactivity Place

  78. Pingback: What Prager and Wilcox are selling. | Dalrock

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