Imperceptible

There was an altercation down in Houston over the weekend that was caught on video and ended up as a story at the Daily Mail:

Note that the woman spends the first minute of the video trying to get a fight started between the men, and the three men spend that time trying to avoid taking the bait.  Eventually her persistence pays off, but much to her surprise she ends up getting punched by one of the men she worked so hard to antagonize.

Let’s you and him fight is an old game, as is don’t hit me I’m a girl, yet the Daily Mail can’t spot either game:

Suddenly the woman finds herself in the middle of three men and she gets hit in the face.

However, this could be the Mail trolling it’s readers by playing dumb.  Two of their US based readers certainly could spot what was going on in the video.  Bannie from Bakersfield commented:

Woman won’t let it go.

Carl Streator from Brooklyn captured it even better:

she turned into a woman so fast. incredible

Most striking is that the video was taken by a girl with her father, and the father didn’t see what was really going on.  You can periodically hear him warning her in the background of the danger of getting too upset over incidents in traffic.  He seems entirely oblivious to the sex dynamic that is in play.  This is too bad, because it would have been an excellent opportunity to help his daughter understand a temptation she will have to resist, a temptation our culture at large is in denial of.  Not only does the culture not warn women about this temptation, very often it rewards this kind of bad behavior by praising the woman for “having balls”.

This entry was posted in Chivalry, Daily Mail, Moxie, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

375 Responses to Imperceptible

  1. E says:

    I believe the relevant term floating around the internet these days is, “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

  2. ^+1
    Wordpress seems to be eating my comments.

    [D: For some reason the spam filter caught several of your comments. I just fished them out (one and two dupes) so hopefully that will train it. I also found one for Elspeth in reply to Anon Reader.]

  3. Cane Caldo says:

    This is too bad, because it would have been an excellent opportunity to help his daughter understand a temptation she will have to resist, a temptation our culture at large is in denial of. Not only does the culture not warn women about this temptation, very often it rewards this kind of bad behavior by praising the woman for “having balls”.

    Yessir; both the temptation to play “Let’s You and Him Fight” and the temptation to take for granted the indulgence men grant women. Frankly, the black guys were restrained.

  4. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    What a fat, ugly, porcine, piece of filth. Note the huge, trashy tattoo on her bovine calf. A modern American woman. Nothing classically feminine about her. Not her looks, not her attitude, not her shrill hysterics. Better for a man to remain single, to be a MGTOW, than to be saddled with her for a wife.

  5. @ Dalrock,

    You’re right, I didn’t hear what the guy in the car was saying until I listened carefully starting at 1:27 after the female was hit. I believe he said, “You have to stop because the wrong people might get hurt.”

    Exactly the wrong message to be sending to his daughter. The message should be, “Look what a woman did to escalate an argument into a fight.”

  6. Pingback: Imperceptible – Manosphere.org

  7. Feminist Hater says:

    I think Dalrock is wrong here. That is not a woman but a new breed of sow, the American Feminist Bovine, which feminists have spent the past sixty years, in truly experimental eugenics labs, seeking to create. A genetic cross over between a pig and a cow.

    They’ve done it! I’m truly impressed!

  8. Anon says:

    (Some) men are the only creatures who have evolved out of the animal kingdom..

  9. anonymous_ng says:

    @RPL “What a fat, ugly, porcine, piece of filth. Note the huge, trashy tattoo on her bovine calf. A modern American woman. Nothing classically feminine about her. Not her looks, not her attitude, not her shrill hysterics. Better for a man to remain single, to be a MGTOW, than to be saddled with her for a wife.”

    That is EXACTLY what I was thinking.

  10. Feminist Hater says:

    Stupid guy might even find himself spending a few nights in the lock-up…. and for what?! That stupid tub of lard! Stupid is as stupid does,

  11. Cane Caldo says:

    I thought I heard TFH earlier.

  12. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Look at the size of those cankles. I wonder if she’s wearing sandals because she can’t find shoes wide enough for her fat feet.

  13. Heywood says:

    I have to give the black guys kudos here. A lot more of restraint than they could have exercised. Fatty needs to put his ugly sow in her place. And his own impulse control was downright African.

    (But do notice one thing, gents – when the fight broke out, only other blacks came out to join. There’s a lesson in there.)

  14. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Feminist Hater: “That is not a woman but a new breed of sow, the American Feminist Bovine, which feminists have spent the past sixty years, in truly experimental eugenics labs, seeking to create. A genetic cross over between a pig and a cow.”

    A pig and a cow would explain her appearance. But from where did she get her shrill belligerence? Pigs and cows have much better personalities.

  15. Anon says:

    That woman was rather fat and hulking…. That detail may indeed be relevant to the situation..

  16. feeriker says:

    “She” (to use that term loosely and generously) is very lucky she wasn’t beaten to a bloody pulp, which is what she really had coming to her. And yes, it is truly amazing to watch her morph from “badass bitch” to “damsel in distress” once she got a very mild sampling of what she should have suffered.

    It would be comforting to think that this cowsow will have learned a lesson from this incident, but that would be expecting the unreasonable from such creatures. I also do not doubt for a second that her bovorcine (is that an acceptable portmanteau adjective?) mouth has caused/gotten her into more trouble since then.

  17. GregMan says:

    I’d say the fat tub of lard got exactly what she deserved.

  18. BubbaCluck says:

    At the end of the video there is the beginning of a chase scene. I am wondering what happened if and when the damaged car caught up to the truck.

  19. pdwalker says:

    GregMan, I’d say she didn’t get enough.

  20. Red Pill Scare says:

    Red Pill Latecomer: A pig and a cow would explain her appearance. But from where did she get her shrill belligerence? Pigs and cows have much better personalities.

    I was initially stumped, not yet having had my coffee, so I started referencing Google. When searching for “most belligerent animals”, one had the following five listed:

    hippo
    rhino
    moose
    wild boar
    cape buffalo

    I think we need to expand the scope of our search for the genetic source material used by the Holy Eugenicists of Feminism in their search for the Ultimate Tankgrrl.

  21. greyghost says:

    What an idiot fighting for that sorry chick. If this gets out of hand he could get shot and killed fighting for the “honor” of that dumb bitch. Straight simpin there fella. normally it is some black man simpin out for some beastie and then getting killed or sent to jail.

  22. SJB says:

    I don’t understand — the movies show that an undernourished, female street-waif can take on 3 or 4 well-trained men twice her size and be victorious. Surely the video above was staged by those three evil patriarchy-enablers who must have coerced that woman to hide her true girl superpower.

    (Here endth sarcasm.)

  23. Cane Caldo says:

    @Heywood

    (But do notice one thing, gents – when the fight broke out, only other blacks came out to join. There’s a lesson in there.)

    Big 10-4 on that. I’m pickin’ up what you’re puttin’ down.

    @greyghost

    normally it is some black man simpin out for some beastie and then getting killed or sent to jail.

    Beastie-related casualties are cross-cultural.

  24. embracingreality says:

    the real tragedy here is that any man in this country could think so little of himself, or enough of her that he would actually associate with such a creature. And that much worse the proof was captured on film and now circulating the internet. What a disgrace. I’d probably kill myself.

  25. Anon says:

    The thing is, none of this would be connected to feminism, by most people. They just don’t grasp the underlying combination of factors here.

    The above comment is correct in pointing out that the XX chromosomed creature lacks any and all traditional metrics of femininity, such as looks, attire, and behavior. Her existence itself would have been impossible in eras past, and is indeed still impossible outside of a few wealthy, heavily feminist countries…

    I am actually delighted that one of the men struck the ‘woman’.

  26. Anon says:

    When searching for “most belligerent animals”, one had the following five listed:

    hippo
    rhino

    Note that the top two resemble this woman in size, shape, skin texture, and disposition…..

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    Watch the video with the sound off. The body language of all partipants, but especially the large female specimen, is really obvious.

  28. Mike T says:

    This is an excellent example of a case where a high minded public servant should restrain the black men and say “watch your tax dollars at work, we got this…”

  29. craig says:

    It’s easy to piece together what happened. There are three cars. Silver car is either a bystander or possibly an acquaintance of white car, but not damaged in any case. White car has a damaged front, consistent with rear-ending a trailer hitch. Most likely, blue truck cut off white car and stopped short to make a last-second turn. White car didn’t stop in time, and obviously thinks it’s blue truck’s fault and wants him to pay. Blue truck thinks he’s not going to pay and is looking to get out of there ASAP.

    Alas, the woman won’t cooperate. She is arguing with silver car. Driver of blue truck repeatedly tells her (and physically pushes her) to get back in and go, but she insists on berating silver car. At 0:30, the parties are starting to separate and go back to normal. At 0:45, blue truck (clearly angry with the woman) starts to pull away, and so what does she do? She restarts the fight, of course, this time with white car. Eventually white car throws a Nalgene bottle at her, and blue truck heroically rushes to her defense and kicks white car (itself, not the driver). Fight is on. Silver car and white car have had enough of this s***.

    At 1:15, she starts to realize she got more fight than she bargained for, and flips immediately to damsel in distress. At 1:20, she gets the punch she richly deserves. Satisfaction having been achieved, white car and silver car are done fighting and prepare to leave. But at 2:00, (a total gamma move) blue truck throws it in reverse to purposely hit white car, then speeds away. Blue truck is lucky he didn’t get shot for that.

  30. craig says:

    My bad. Upon repeat viewing, it appears that who I supposed was driver of the silver car is actually a passenger in the white car.

  31. Dalrock says:

    @Craig

    It’s easy to piece together what happened. There are three cars. Silver car is either a bystander or possibly an acquaintance of white car, but not damaged in any case. White car has a damaged front, consistent with rear-ending a trailer hitch. Most likely, blue truck cut off white car and stopped short to make a last-second turn. White car didn’t stop in time, and obviously thinks it’s blue truck’s fault and wants him to pay. Blue truck thinks he’s not going to pay and is looking to get out of there ASAP.

    I’m not sure we are watching the same video. No damage is visible on the white car in the beginning of the video, and the truck doesn’t have a trailer hitch, it has a ball attached to the bumper. The damage to the white car happens towards the end of the video when the driver of the truck backs into it.

    Alas, the woman won’t cooperate. She is arguing with silver car. Driver of blue truck repeatedly tells her (and physically pushes her) to get back in and go, but she insists on berating silver car. At 0:30, the parties are starting to separate and go back to normal. At 0:45, blue truck (clearly angry with the woman) starts to pull away

    He is trying to get her to stop beaking off to the guys in the white car. When she continues to refuse, and refuses to get back in the truck, he drives off. However, when she goes back to the car and beaks off some more, the passenger in the car throws the drink at her. This is when the man in the truck switches to white knight mode, and runs back and kicks the car.

  32. I couldn’t help but chuckle when she got hit. Her reaction is priceless.

  33. bob k. mando says:

    as i’ve been saying on Vox’s for a long time, experience in the pits at short tracks long ago taught me that if you want a fight, you let two drivers go at it.

    if you want a riot numbering in the dozens of people, let the women screech and yell for 15 minutes before the festivities begin.

  34. craig says:

    1. You’re right, I saw the truck tailpipe and thought it was a hitch.
    2. Maybe. The person filming starts off parallel to white car, but moves up during the fight. After the fight, the driver of white car is pointing to some kind of damage from the kick. Obviously not as much as was visible after the intentional hit.

  35. Robert What? says:

    @Feminist Hater

    “They’ve done it! I’m truly impressed!”

    Yes, amazing what comes out of the labs these days. Probably a cross species experiment of some kind. But correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t animal husbandry supposed to increase the quality of the species?

  36. Spawny Get says:

    How misogynist of you lot.

    That female heffalump took that punch like a male heffalump.

    Also…she coulda taken those two guys. She went way kind on them. Imagine she’d sat on them? yikes. The crush injuries alone.

  37. Jim Christian says:

    Meh, if a broad assaults me, I’ll happily knock her out. Never happened so far, but I’m content with my plan. Besides, any guy that would allow some bee-otch to goad him into a fight with an unknown entity is a weakling simp of a man anyway, you wouldn’t have to worry about him too much anyway.

  38. Dave says:

    Is it that women are naturally stupid, or they just don’t care about their safety? When it comes to looking for a fight, guys instinctively know who they dare not mess with. A 100-pound guy won’t ever mouth off on a well trained 200-pound fighter. But you regularly witness a 75-pound little woman making every effort to provoke a skilled and muscular man into a fight. And when she gets her behind handed to her, she’ll then start to scream and yell.
    This big woman did not even make an effort to fight back when she was hit. She simply became a “girl” at once, signaling someone–anyone–to come rescue her from a fight she obviously initiated.

  39. I love me some good MGTOW pornography. Thanks Dalrock!

    Let me just say the brotha’s don’t know how to punch. That hog should have been knocked cold if the dude knew what he was doing. Pretty pathetic display all around. Keep them fists in tight and avoid the wide, swinging punches bro. That is just using your wrist power like a girl. Put some chest and shoulders behind those punches and the sow will drop like a Led Zeppelin.

  40. Spawny Get says:

    “When it comes to looking for a fight, guys instinctively know who they dare not mess with. A 100-pound guy won’t ever mouth off on a well trained 200-pound fighter. But you regularly witness a 75-pound little woman making every effort to provoke a skilled and muscular man into a fight. And when she gets her behind handed to her, she’ll then start to scream and yell.”
    From the UK, note the groin kick and face punch attempt on the bouncer. Guess who went to trial?
    http://brightcove04.brightcove.com/hd2/1/2540076170001/201311/2540076170001_2808431235001_SWNS-SUCKER-PUNCH-01.mp4?pubId=2540076170001&videoId=2807386087001
    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/349239/Woman-punched-through-takeaway-window-in-Totnes-Devon-goes-viral-around-world

  41. Spawny Get says:

    Also note the bimboid in the audio immediately take the side of the girl who just tried to kick a guy twice her size in the balls…your point proved, I think

  42. ljess says:

    Unfortunately, the woman did not get what she needed – a very bloody nose.

  43. She’s got legs

    Yup

    She’s holdin’ leg wonderin’ how to feel them.
    Would you get behind them if you could only find them?
    She’s my baby, she’s my baby,
    Yeah, it’s alright.

  44. First, her screaming like a chimp from 1:15- 1:20 is so over the top. Lord have mercy we really are nothing but Apes with a thin veneer of civilization. You could barely distinguish the sounds of that fight from any chimp fight in the wild. This took me 3 seconds to find this: Listen to the sounds of the chimps. Same exact sound as the woman.

    Second, OMG her reaction at 1:24 when she feels that little tap. It was not much more than a bitch slap. Full open hand probably would have hurt more. LOL, I am sure “Rey” would have shrugged it off. She will be diddling herself imagining getting rocked again like that. Want to bet?

  45. Anon says:

    craig,

    At 0:45, blue truck (clearly angry with the woman) starts to pull away, and so what does she do? She restarts the fight, of course, this time with white car.

    It would be hilarious if the pickup truck drove off and left her there.

    It would still have been smarter for the man to never leave the pickup truck once he decided they would leave and the woman disobeyed.

    But instead, being the whiteknight that he is (which is why he is with a fattie to begin with), he did the stupid thing…..

    Eventually white car throws a Nalgene bottle at her, and blue truck heroically rushes to her defense and kicks white car (itself, not the driver). Fight is on. Silver car and white car have had enough of this s***.

  46. On OP’s video: Who thinks our pudgy White Knight will get laid based on his Uber Alpha display of taking on 2 men at the same time. Or for his less than Alpha display of crashing them at the end.

    My bet is he initiates later that night and the Hepholump/Dependopomous/yougoooooggiiiiiirrrrll/special snoflawke becomes highly irate and Shit tests him. “How can you think about sex after what happened today….to which WK replies: “Of course you are right sweetheart.”

    His problem is it wasn’t an Alpha display but merely pent up Beta rage at how pathetic his life with this woman must be.

    On Spawny’s video: The British Tabloid describes it as the girl gets “sucker” punched through a wall. She kicks him and punches him. He basically blocks it hard and counterpunches her through the glass.

    How the Frack is that a “sucker punch?”

  47. Anon says:

    Dave,

    Is it that women are naturally stupid, or they just don’t care about their safety?

    Have you given full thought to why serial killers get thousands of love letters from women, especially if they specialize in killing women?

  48. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Dalrock
    Most striking is that the video was taken by a girl with her father, and the father didn’t see what was really going on. You can periodically hear him warning her in the background of the danger of getting too upset over incidents in traffic. He seems entirely oblivious to the sex dynamic that is in play. This is too bad, because it would have been an excellent opportunity to help his daughter understand a temptation she will have to resist, a temptation our culture at large is in denial of.

    Good catch, but let’s also give him credit for what he doesn’t do: Drop his camera, leave his daughter behind, and rush forward in white-knight fashion to put a stop to the vicious brutes that just struck a defenseless woman! Staying out of fights that are not your own is a pretty good habit to have, and in this case I might suggest that Dad taught that lesson by example. For her part, the daughter can learn that when she chooses to buy herself some trouble, she can’t count on having good men (like Dad) being ready and willing to rescue her from her own stupidity.

    Unfortunately, there are still plenty who will encourage others to learn an entirely different lesson from it. Have any conservative or “family values” sites run anything on this video yet? Because when they do I can only imagine them placing it under a headline something like, “WOMAN ASSAULTED IN TRAFFIC DISPUTE AS COWARDLY BYSTANDER FILMS IT AND DOES NOTHING.”

  49. Pingback: Imperceptible | Reaction Times

  50. elmertjones says:

    Couple of things. I recently moved to Houston and have found the drivers here are an order of magnitude more courteous than Albuquerque. Second, she has the classic “empower bun”, horn-rims, and thongs. I thought the thing on her leg was a blooody scrape but it’s a tattoo. Hilarious how she decomposes into a shreiking victim once the fisticuffs actually start. As others have noted, not how the TV tough chicks act when confronted by impudent thugs.

  51. elmertjones says:

    Also, Mr. Dao is either Chinese or Vietnamese. The women in those cultures do not behave like that so he has no frame of reference to identify the sexual dynamics.

  52. Yoda says:

    Wonder if make a sammich she can

  53. Anon says:

    Also, Mr. Dao is either Chinese or Vietnamese.

    The father talks in an American accent, so is at least second gen, and his daughter is thus third-gen. She is fully vulnerable to feminism. The old culture does not carry that far forward…

  54. feeriker says:

    Have you given full thought to why serial killers get thousands of love letters from women, especially if they specialize in killing women?

    On that note, I’ve been struck by a deliciously evil idea.

    Make a formal legal exception to the ban on polygyny for serial murderers. Let them marry as many of their “groupies” as they want to – as long as these women join their new “hubby” in prison for the rest of their lives. Then see how many them he murders within a set period of time. Multiple birds killed with one stone (pun intended).

  55. TLM says:

    Am I the only one disappointed the chick didn’t get hit more?

  56. Tam the Bam says:

    Spawny, what’s that sneaky little slap/faceflick thing the little guy in the white sweater gives at 00:20. Is he Hispanic? Does he play for some Argentinian/Brazilian soccer team? Beardman goes and stubs his tab out (sort of equivalent to taking off your glasses) and turns back. It’s on. Had me jacket hinnie.

  57. Men need to make it clear to their wives/fiancees/girlfriends:

    “You will only have my protection over you if you are not the primary cause that makes it necessary. You do anything remotely like what the woman in that video did, and we don’t know each other.”

  58. JDG says:

    Wonder if make a sammich she can

    I’m trying hard not to comment on this (speak no evil, etc…).

  59. JDG says:

    On the sammich note, here is a picture I never thought I’d see:

  60. Yoda says:

    Looks like the arms and hands of ET she has

  61. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    Got another one for you to pick apart.

    http://family-studies.org/maxim-masculinity-one-legacy-of-the-divorce-revolution/

    These people just never quit.

  62. JDG says:

    This is one is for Yoda, Fuzzy, Farm Boy and Spawny:

  63. Gunner Q says:

    That video’s ending was ominous. My survival instincts tell me that the truck driver either went to a very public place, ideally a police station, or ended up in the hospital… or maybe a roadside culvert. God help him if he let the car follow him home.

    But he would’ve deserved no less for utter stupidity, first being baited by his off-leash land whale and then by ramming the car of the blacks who let him off easy in a fistfight (especially since there’s what looks like a holster on the third guy’s belt at 1:46).

    bluepillprofessor @ May 20, 2016 at 1:19 pm:
    “Let me just say the brotha’s don’t know how to punch. That hog should have been knocked cold if the dude knew what he was doing.”

    More likely he would have kicked her in the knee and let her fat do the takedown. But I can understand his going for her mouth.

  64. feeriker says:

    On the sammich note, here is a picture I never thought I’d see:

    As if any self-respecting man would put anything near his mouth that’s been touched by that.

  65. mike says:

    No doubt the beast was yelling at her boyfriend to back into the car.

  66. feeriker says:

    No doubt the beast was yelling at her boyfriend to back into the car.

    Yelling at him and probably beating on him for letting her get decked. I’m sure she kicked his arse thoroughly when they got home.

  67. Yoda says:

    Second, she has the classic “empower bun”

    Never heard of that before I have.
    How exactly empowering it is?
    Though surely it would be.
    For TrigglyPuff had one she did

  68. @ The Question

    That guy didn’t learn a damn thing from his experience with any of the men who called him out on his bullshit. The guy is living in another world.

  69. ljess says:

    http://family-studies.org/maxim-masculinity-one-legacy-of-the-divorce-revolution/ – This has got to be one ignorant mangina – As if men want to live ten or more years with a nagging wife – or even using the qualifier of a STABLE marriage with todays women – Todays women is the problem – Mgtow is not out of the blue but is a result of an unholy alliance of women/feminism/state – I am surprised that there is not a lot more mgtow.

  70. Oscar says:

    On the lighter side: behold the “no fat, old strippers” amendment.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/louisiana-senate-amendment-would-limit-stripper-weight/

    Watch feminists suddenly embrace the free market!

  71. Anon says:

    TheQuestion,

    These people just never quit.

    Jeez. The mangina brings out all the tropes, such as ‘Peter Pan syndrome’, and ‘men benefit from marriage by working harder (400 more hours per year)’. He also calls men who avoid the risks of marriage ‘misogynists’.

    The good news is that he took the bait, and doubled down. This harms his cause, and brings out more firepower against him.

    It is certainly relevant that Bradford Wilcox looks like this. Again, one can hardly look more like a Beta than this :

    Note the pink shirt, in addition to everything else.

  72. Anon says:

    Here is another picture. Could he BE more true to the stereotype? I mean, come on…

    There is no evidence online (from what I could find) about his own wife, and what she looks like…

  73. technovelist says:

    The Question beat me to the “Maxim Masculinity” article, which my wife had sent me a bit earlier. It’s the usual stew of how it’s really all men’s fault, but at least he does admit that divorce is brutal to men, although of course he has no solution to that issue…

  74. ray says:

    A nation of ferals, rushing to doom. Mark 5: 12-14.

    Not a single one of those people knew how to fight. Kept damage minimal.

  75. feeriker says:

    It is certainly relevant that Bradford Wilcox looks like this. Again, one can hardly look more like a Beta than this :

    There is no evidence online (from what I could find) about his own wife, and what she looks like…

    Regardless of what his wife looks like, it’s certain that SHE rules the roost. No doubt she also reminds him daily, however obliquely and subtly, that she’s always one misspoken word or stupid deed from him away from frivorcing his beta ass and getting a real man.

    Again, it’s all about threatpoint.

  76. ljess says:

    MarcusD
    You get what you pay for and sometimes you pay far more than planned. Some girls cost you your soul – This may be one of those cases.

  77. Tarl says:

    Fat tatted pig who picks fights with blacks – what a catch.

    “Meh, if a broad assaults me, I’ll happily knock her out. ”

    And then all the white knights watching will rush in and stomp you.

  78. rivelino says:

    awesome post and comments, great work dalrock and crew.

  79. JRH says:

    >>> TLM: Am I the only one disappointed the chick didn’t get hit more?

    No, no you are not.

    It all comes back to the question I keep asking the women in my life, “do you want to be equal or do you want to be special?” Because you can’t have both. This heifer had ONE SECOND of equality and started bawling like a two-year-old.

  80. Sean says:

    I don’t know what I’ve been told, a big legged woman ain’t got no soul….

    As far as “empower buns” go, I imagine the difference between a regular bun and an empowered one is roughly a hundred pounds.

  81. “And then all the white knights watching will rush in and stomp you.”

    That’s what a CCW if for.

  82. Art Deco says:

    http://www.loveandfidelity.org/resources/wedded-bliss-wandering-to-the-altar/

    There is no evidence online (from what I could find) about his own wife, and what she looks like…

    Well, get someone competent to search for you. His wife’s name is ‘Danielle’. She’s on the board of a local Catholic school, so presumably there are children. I cannot say as I care much for her personal sense of style (died hair). He’s not young, so it’s a reasonable wager they’ve been married for close to 20 years. She has some affiliation with the center he runs at the University of Virginia.

    Not much point or excuse in being hostile to this man.

  83. Clay, Bill Clay says:

    If a the power princesses are going to Lean In like that, they may want to keep their mitts up. I think Mike Tyson said we’re all strong and independent until we get punched in the face.

  84. Anon says:

    Not much point or excuse in being hostile to this man.

    Why? Did you not see how much effort he puts into the ‘Man up and marry’ shaming language, with all the tired old tropes. Unless, of course, you share those views.

    Do some research into his writings (linked here) before you form an opinion. As feeriker correctly says :

    Regardless of what his wife looks like, it’s certain that SHE rules the roost. No doubt she also reminds him daily, however obliquely and subtly, that she’s always one misspoken word or stupid deed from him away from frivorcing his beta ass and getting a real man.

  85. Art Deco says:

    Do some research into his writings (linked here) before you form an opinion. As feeriker correctly says :

    I’ve been reading his writings for about a decade and a half. He’s a persistent critic of the divorce culture and the train-wreck relationship culture.

  86. Anon says:

    Art Deco,

    He is a ‘critic’ of divorce culture through blaming men for it.

    His video and his rebuttal article are boilerplate Tradcon misandry :

    http://family-studies.org/maxim-masculinity-one-legacy-of-the-divorce-revolution/

    Precisely what part of the above video and article do you agree with? What parts do you disagree with? If you endorse his views, you effectively endorse :

    “Man up and marry those sluts”
    “Marriage is a huge bonanza for men”
    “Going MGTOW is misogynist”

    The downvotes on his video are massive. Get a clue.

  87. ray says:

    “That’s what a CCW if for.”

    Well what we saw on that vid was not ‘fighting’. However, if you’re a reasonably young man, and are proficient in a martial technique, guns are mostly not needed (dependent upon location of course). If you’re old/frail or are like one of the helpless sheep in that vid, who never learned to fight, I prefer OC. That way the scum element and their mouthy biotches never get started, there’s no altercation, and etc.

  88. imnobody00 says:

    It’s amazing to see the instant transformation from Strong independent woman (hear me roaarrr, don’t mess with me) into little girl beaten by very mean men, daddy, please protect me. They are so meany…

    About her physical appearance, I’d rather not make any comment. The fact that this cow has a couple is the real tragedy. Nothing will change in America until it’s impossible for these sad excuses for a woman to get laid.

    American men must grow a pair and know when a life of celibacy is preferable.

  89. feeriker says:

    The downvotes on his video are massive.

    That’ll probably just make Brad double down, with a nice heaping helping of ad hominum directed at his detractors. That’s the usual stock tactic of that crowd.

    In other words, Brad is probably more Gamma (on the Vox Day scale) than Beta.

  90. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    He did double down. See here his reaction to MGTOW attacks on his first video :

    http://family-studies.org/maxim-masculinity-one-legacy-of-the-divorce-revolution/

    All the predictable terms used (“Peter Pan”, “misogynist”, etc.).

    Yet Art Deco insists he is not a TradCon cuck.

  91. Jim says:

    Anon says:
    May 21, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    feeriker,

    He did double down. See here his reaction to MGTOW attacks on his first video :

    http://family-studies.org/maxim-masculinity-one-legacy-of-the-divorce-revolution/

    All the predictable terms used (“Peter Pan”, “misogynist”, etc.).

    Yet Art Deco insists he is not a TradCon cuck.

    So many idiots these days. They always double down on their stupidity, even when their arguments are destroyed. What an arrogant ass.

    The shaming language is a crackup though. By doing that he’s admitting he has no argument. It is funny how cucks like this sound just like the feminists.

  92. Anon says:

    Jim,

    By doing that he’s admitting he has no argument. It is funny how cucks like this sound just like the feminists.

    Yep.

    Yet Art Deco has approvingly listened to this man for ‘a decade and a half’, as he says.

  93. Spike says:

    A thing to note regarding this video: the more a female is influenced by feminism, the fatter, uglier, more hateful and more man-baiting she will be.
    Just like all lesbians begin looking like Rod Stewart in middle age, so too do feminist -influenced women look fat, tattooed, dress in low-brow garbage and generally do everything to ruin their God-given beauty. It’s as sick as it is tragic.

  94. feeriker says:

    A thing to note regarding this video: the more a female is influenced by feminism, the fatter, uglier, more hateful and more man-baiting she will be.
    Just like all lesbians begin looking like Rod Stewart in middle age, so too do feminist -influenced women look fat, tattooed, dress in low-brow garbage and generally do everything to ruin their God-given beauty. It’s as sick as it is tragic.

    Yep, and the fact that the fat, tatooed, trashy, bitchy fuglies are beginning to outnumber every other type of woman reminds us of how deep-seated the rot is.

    We as a society are well and truly f***ed.

  95. Spawny Get says:

    Thanks for the new desktop image, JDG. Here’s one that Yoda dropped at my place.
    Dystopia was never dystopia-er

  96. Spawny Get says:

    For those who don’t know, Trigglypuff is the new Big Red

    Don’t know who Big Red is? (lucky up till now, you)

  97. AnteB says:

    This is like a real life version of “Fighting Meegan’s Battles”.

  98. @E

    I love the phrase “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes”, it reminds me of Tommy Sotomayor so thanks for bringing it into this conversation. This woman got what she deserved, because she could have just let it go, but she chose to write a check with her mouth that her behind couldn’t cash.

  99. “Red Pill Latecomer says:
    May 20, 2016 at 10:51 am
    What a fat, ugly, porcine, piece of filth. Note the huge, trashy tattoo on her bovine calf. A modern American woman. Nothing classically feminine about her. Not her looks, not her attitude, not her shrill hysterics…”

    Same thoughts as went through my mind upon first viewing.

    “JRH says:
    May 21, 2016 at 9:33 am
    >>> TLM: Am I the only one disappointed the chick didn’t get hit more?

    No, no you are not.

    It all comes back to the question I keep asking the women in my life, “do you want to be equal or do you want to be special?” Because you can’t have both. This heifer had ONE SECOND of equality and started bawling like a two-year-old.”

    When I saw that effin’ hippo get hit once, I thought that she didn’t get hit hard enough, and I was hoping that she would get hit at least a few times more — because she fully deserved it.
    And she acted EXACTLY like I thought she would — screaming and whining like a baby, when she started the whole mess with her trash-talking mouth.
    THAT crap will end when females like this one get the crap beaten out of them, like they fully deserve.
    (Being a man and not entitled to ‘chivalry’, I learned a long time ago to control my temper and watch what I say in altercations. Today’s “liberated” females need to learn that same lesson — or pay the price by getting a fistful of “EQUALITY”.)
    Hmmm….”A Fistful of Equality”; that sounds like a good title for the category of videos like this when loud-mouthed confrontational Western females get more “Equality” than what they want.

  100. On the marriage video from Prager: He says marriage is good because-

    1. Married men work harder- 400 hours a year on average more! This is good.

    2. Married men make more money.

    3. Married men have more responsibility.

    4. Married men sacrifice more.

    5. Married men spend less time with friends.

    6. Married men lose their identity.

    7. Married men are nagged into working harder by their wives.

    8. Married men are forced to answer to their wives.

    9. Married men support the economy.

    This is a MGTOW video, not a pro-marriage video.

  101. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    imnobodyoo: Nothing will change in America until it’s impossible for these sad excuses for a woman to get laid. American men must grow a pair and know when a life of celibacy is preferable.

    I don’t understand how any man would want to sleep with that she-beast. I don’t see how any man could get it up for that creature. Seeing her naked would leave me cold and limp. Hugging her naked body would make me retch.

    Yes, I too wish she’d gotten punched several times more, and much harder.

    As for Dennis Prager, he loves to talk about his Judeo-Christian VALUES. He loves to shame the Peter Pans into marriage because “it’s good for society.” He blames mostly men for the fewer marriages taking place, and later in one’s life. He brags about having higher VALUES because he’s less concerned about what’s good for men, than about what’s good for children, for families, and for society as a whole.

    Yet Prager divorced his last wife (his second) and married another woman (his third) over 20 years younger, who was herself previously married with children.

  102. Kevin says:

    Some great comments about this situation.

    The first thought I had was the general lack of civility in general. I am sure many here have been involved in similar situations. I was involved in a road incident where someone was screaming, angry and threatening violence. With no women present, a few calm words, an apology since I was in the wrong, soon we were both just looking over our cars for damage, discussing what we thought we should do about it. We decided to let it go. If he or I had a screaming woman along for the ride I can only imagine how things could have been violent. The truck driver would have greatly benefitted by telling the woman to shut up get in the car, and offer some simple apologies. I think that is much more natural among men because getting in fights is only appealing for the most low brow/high testosterone men with poor impulse control.

    Via a friend of a friend I have a connection to Brad Wilcox and understand him to be a very good guy who fought against all of academia and his career against gay marriage and has risked a lot. However, he is very much of the prior generation that still does not “get” the modern marriage environment. He is very blue pill. But a very good man and good Christian per my friend, if wrong about some things. For example saying marriage makes a man more productive – as a reason for a man to get married is just silly. It is that odd concept that marriage is a magic elixir you pour on men and changes them.

    Finally – I think it is hilarious and stupid how people look at a picture of a man and declare alpha/beta. It’s absurd. A middle aged man devoting his life to career and family with a loving supporting wife is going to look soft and flabby just because spending your time at the gym is time not spent elsewhere being productive. An UMC man has relatively little risk of divorce, and he and his wife may both relax a bit on the looks as age take their inevitable toal. He may well be beta, but beta is not a look. It’s actions, frame, etc.

  103. They Call Me Tom says:

    The crying of the heifer in the video sounds a bit like when kids fake cry (most of my friends have kids, so I’m the fun uncle and the mean uncle at the same time), she’s not crying out of true distress, but because she thinks the crying puts some sort of sociological force field around her. It’s too bad she didn’t get punched a few more times so that next time she wanted to pick fights with strangers, she understood that a little fake crying wasn’t going to bail her out of her own stupidity.

    As to Prager, I listened to him a lot in my twenties, he’s right about a lot of things, and I appreciated his calm delivery of what he had to say. He does however have a ridiculously large blind spot with regards to marriage and which sex is contributing the most to its downfall through their immaturity. I learned that in my early twenties, and yet Prager has to be in his sixties by now not having learned it… then again I’ve heard those rumors about how jewish women treat jewish men, maybe he was been beaten into submission on the issues a long, long time ago.

  104. feeriker says:

    Yet Prager divorced his last wife (his second) and married another woman (his third) over 20 years younger, who was herself previously married with children.

    Audi vocem meam, ut faciam – “Do as I say, not as I do.”

    A motto the tradcucks share with the libprogs.

  105. Anon says:

    Kevin,

    I think it is hilarious and stupid how people look at a picture of a man and declare alpha/beta.

    Normally, that is true. However, some people have ‘the look’ of either, and really stand out. Just like everyone here is noting the correlation between the fat female’s behavior and her appearance. These correlations matter.

    bluepillprofessor,

    This is a MGTOW video, not a pro-marriage video.

    Indeed. Note how ‘working harder’ and ‘taking on a heavier load’ are seen as self-explanatory benefits for men. Dalrock has, in the past, exposed this sleight of hand from Tradcons, how an added burden is asserted to be a positive (but only for men, never on women).

    The video was his first volley, but when MGTOWs attacked him, his response was identical to what one would expect from a Tradcuck. A lot of ‘Peter Pan’ and ‘misogyny’ tossed around.

    http://family-studies.org/maxim-masculinity-one-legacy-of-the-divorce-revolution/

  106. They Call Me Tom says:

    “He did double down. See here his reaction to MGTOW attacks on his first video :

    http://family-studies.org/maxim-masculinity-one-legacy-of-the-divorce-revolution/

    All the predictable terms used (“Peter Pan”, “misogynist”, etc.).”

    His double down is intellectually bizarre, in that his response on one hand admits that divorce, and the high likelihood of divorce being female driven, is the disincentive (not peter pan syndrome or misogyny) is the reason marriage looks like a bad bet for men, and then quickly introduces red herrings and entirely avoids addressing that women are destroying marriage through their immaturity and selfishness, not men.

    If Mr. Wilcox really wants to save marriage, he’s first going to have to address women’s destruction of the institution. Until he does that, he can’t expect to be taken even remotely seriously by men.

  107. Anon says:

    4. Married men sacrifice more.

    5. Married men spend less time with friends.

    6. Married men lose their identity.

    7. Married men are nagged into working harder by their wives.

    8. Married men are forced to answer to their wives.

    All this is obviously good, in their minds. How a man would not plunge headfirst into this is a mystery to them.

  108. feeriker says:

    Finally – I think it is hilarious and stupid how people look at a picture of a man and declare alpha/beta. It’s absurd.

    It’s no more absurd than looking at a fat, tattooed, face-pierced “woman” and knowing from her looks that she’s neither feminine nor almost certainly wife or mother material. Contrary to what our society would like you to believe, you very often CAN “judge a book by its cover.”

    A middle aged man devoting his life to career and family with a loving supporting wife is going to look soft and flabby just because spending your time at the gym is time not spent elsewhere being productive.

    On what evidence do you base this assertion? I haven’t spent any time at the gym in God-knows-how-long either and also have my share of “padding.” Yet I’ve never been accused of looking like Brad does. As for “devoting life to career and family,” that usually hardens you up, especially in this day and age where men who would be providers and heads of households are under more vicious assault than ever be ever institution in society, even —especially– the church and their own families.

    Also, can you say with certainty that the “loving, supporting wife” part is true? Unless she’s an extremely low-value woman, that seems like a preposterous assertion.

  109. Kevin says:

    @Freeriker

    As I said I know the family second hand and while no one knows the details of others intimate lives by all accounts from close friends he has a great marriage and is a great man. He has fought huge political battles and been denied advancement in his career for his Christian positions and family supporting research. I think that type of courage is admirable, whatever his sociasexual hierarchy is, and behavior I would like to have more of, even if I disagree with him. I hope I would be so brave if my career was on the line.

    As far as others doubling down on labeling people’s status via a photograph, comparing conclusions from a photograph vs a video are very different in the amount of information. Do you guys put some vicious game face on for your professional photographs? I first became aware of this silliness when Brendon Eich was in the news and some website posted his picture declaring him beta. He actually posted on the website mocking the losers there for their relative accomplishments in life and the reality of being a middle aged father with some kids. It was so clear how silly this practice is, and like most accusations of “beta” or “delta”, just school yard taunts. They also reveal how poor the concepts of alpha and beta are at explaining much beyond Rollo’s limited descriptions.

  110. >>He may well be beta, but beta is not a look. It’s actions, frame, etc.

    You can tell a lot from a single pic and even more from a video clip. Some Betas may not be easy to verify by pic alone but if there is a source of all Betahood it is this guy. Come on! You want action. How about that pink shirt? While I am sure his wife bought it for him, HE had to take the action of putting it on.

    I think you are mistaken in your understanding of “Beta.” Beta is “good.” It is kind, considerate, caring, thoughtful, helpful, self-sacrificing. So, obviously, this guy doesn’t just “look” Beta, he espouses it as not just the ideal but the ONLY possible way. By definition, if you are married you are “Beta” (Sorry /r/Thefamilyalpha) but there are many levels of Betahood- some nearly approach an Alpha frame. This guy is like in the 9th Circle of Betadoom. He may even be the source of all Beta energy in the universe.

  111. feeriker says:

    He has fought huge political battles and been denied advancement in his career for his Christian positions and family supporting research.

    Look, I’m not gunning for this guy, but unless his “family supporting” research has included an unmistakeably clear recognition that it is in MASSIVE part women (including –especially– so-called “Christian” women) who have been responsible for the destruction of the family in the modern era, that women as well as men, have responsibilities to their marriages that they have clearly refused to own up to and assume, and that it is women who are in open and unapologetic rebellion against God’s commandments (with the enthusiastic assistance of beta cuck “Christians” like Brad), then his “research” is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS</I.

    So far, his output and attitude suggests that his “research” didn’t even come close to exposing these truths – or even worse and more inexcusably, did expose them, but that he chose to ignore the impolitic and uncomfortable truth. If that means that Brad wasted years of his life on a misguided quest for a “truth” palatable to the world but also acceptable to Christ at the same time, then that’s unfortunate. He still has time to open his eyes, see the light, repent, and make a difference.

  112. Anon says:

    You can tell a lot from a single pic and even more from a video clip. Some Betas may not be easy to verify by pic alone but if there is a source of all Betahood it is this guy. Come on! You want action. How about that pink shirt? While I am sure his wife bought it for him, HE had to take the action of putting it on.

    It is a question of awareness on the part of the man. Mr. Wilcox could make immediate improvements with a different hairstyle, no glasses, some weightloss, better shirts, and maybe even a beard while the weightloss is in process.

    This may not matter to a married man in a supposedly solid marriage, but when he starts telling single men to ‘man up’ then his noteworthy appearance is relevant and correlates to his behavior (just like it is for the fat chick in the fisticuffs video, or like it is for Manboobz Futrelle).

  113. Feminist Hater says:

    Come on guys, just watch the video. His monotone voice alone is enough to send shivers down the spine of all men. He’s a beaten down shell of a man. He speaks like one who has no joy in life. His mannerisms in that video scream, scream, ‘Don’t be like me!’.

  114. Anon says:

    His monotone voice alone is enough to send shivers down the spine of all men. He’s a beaten down shell of a man. He speaks like one who has no joy in life. His mannerisms in that video scream, scream, ‘Don’t be like me!’.

    And he wears a pink shirt everywhere. Both in his website photos as well as that video with his wife. In three separate instances he is wearing a pink shirt.

  115. The guy is beta in attitude. I tend to agree with Kevin though about the knee jerk reaction to appearance that seems to so inform so many comments in these parts. Grow a beard while dropping weight? Seriously? And the pink shirt is beta? I would struggle getting a neck beard to fill in. I have a pink shirt.

    It is good to stay fit. Ive been fortunate that into middle age at 53 I still wear the size waist I had in college, and Ive added size and strength in upper body. But I also wouldn’t have managed that without resources that career provides for, with equipment, occasionally a trainer, tennis club membership, available time, so forth. Of the aforementioned things the career, which came from a rigorous STEM field degree and much hard work, is more important than getting in the gym and growing a neck beard. Remember the cliche chant where the high academic (beta) university sings to the away crowd from the athletically dominant university

    “that’s alright
    that’s OK
    you’ll all work
    for us someday”.

    I guess its cool if you can carry more boxes than the guy who owns the company.

    Finally comes some reality. Because of training or trying to train with my 22 and 20 year old sons I have a June 1st date with an ortho surgeon to grind off an arthritic bone spur, repair the biceps tendon, and fix a torn rotator cuff muscle in my right shoulder. At the end of it because of the 3-4 months rehab and a boyish face I will look beta-ish until I can work back into shape.

    Im thinking if I rogain the cheeks and neck to get a beard and jettison the pink shirt I will not be deemed beta. Or just not give a crap.
    I like the kind of analysis made when given some quotes or context to evaluate, like words spoken on a video for instance….not the kind of opinion you can get by seeing a glimpse of a snap chat.

  116. Anon says:

    I like the kind of analysis made when given some quotes or context to evaluate,

    Plenty of that is provided upthread.

    Not to mention his rebuttal to MGTOW, which is linked three times upthread..

  117. Anon

    I saw that. If my comment suggested there was no analysis I must have made a misstatement. Or my comment was misread.
    My intended meaning was to criticize the one dimensional judgements made in this thread (and so often made in other threads), not to say they were the only judgements in the thread.
    The beard comment really got me on another level.
    there are so damn many cuddly flannel wearing neck beard growing, -newest IPA- connoisseur-ing, hummus eating, Subaru driving, closet pedicuring,Trader Joe shopping, tattooed foodie betas that mentioning getting a beard seems to be a piece of data that says:

    I’M A BETA, YOU’RE A BETA, HE’S A BETA, SHE’S A BETA,
    WOULDN’T YOU LIKE TO BE A BETA TOO ?

  118. Anon says:

    empath,

    YOU put the ‘neck’ preface before anything. I merely said that a beard (presumably a trim, well-groomed one) was a solution to hide is facial roundness while the fat-loss program is underway.

    If you are going to react to things others have not said, at least make it entertaining..

  119. Yoda says:

    Talent she does have

  120. @anon

    YOU put the ‘neck’ preface before anything

    I’m still concerned about the neck pink shirt

  121. Spike says:

    @Anon, They Call Me Tom:
    Just had a read of Bradford Wilcox’s “Maxim Masculinity” article. thanks for posting.

    “One tragic consequence of what we might call the Maxim Masculinity view of love and marriage is that fewer men will seek to cultivate the virtues that make them good lovers and husbands, to their detriment and to the detriment of the women in their lives”.

    “Another tragic consequence is that more men will end up uncared for, unhappy, and unhealthy in later life—that is, if they make it into late life: unmarried men live almost 10 years less than stably married men”.

    -No Phuquing kidding! Articles like these are why the Western world is turning to manure. Too many academics with cognitive dissonance. He also seems blind to the 40+ years of social science research that says that children suffer from divorce, women suffer (the health of single women and lesbians is far worse than that of married women, on all fronts, as proven by numerous public health institutions.

    What he doesn’t seem to understand – he must be missing a pair – is that there is no incentive for men to “cultivate the virtues that make them good lovers and husbands” thanks to feminism.

  122. Dalrock says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    As for Dennis Prager, he loves to talk about his Judeo-Christian VALUES. He loves to shame the Peter Pans into marriage because “it’s good for society.” He blames mostly men for the fewer marriages taking place, and later in one’s life. He brags about having higher VALUES because he’s less concerned about what’s good for men, than about what’s good for children, for families, and for society as a whole.

    Yet Prager divorced his last wife (his second) and married another woman (his third) over 20 years younger, who was herself previously married with children.

    Prager is surprisingly pro divorce. He wrote a piece a number of years ago taking conservatives to task for complaining about high divorce rates:

    Most Americans believe that for the past generation, America has been in a moral decline. And whenever conservatives describe this decline, they include the high divorce rate, along with crime and out-of-wedlock births, as a prime example. I believe conservatives are wrong here.

    I have listened some to Prager in the past (mostly before I started blogging) and enjoyed his program outside of his “men/women” focused programs. But he doesn’t have a leg to stand on complaining that men aren’t marrying while being a champion of divorce. If I have some time this week maybe I’ll write a short post on it.

    I do think the hate on Dr. Wilcox is misplaced. I think he is mistaken in some areas, but I don’t think he shares Prager’s zeal for the divorce revolution. I also think he should get some credit for responding to the MGTOW video. I haven’t seen his original video, and I haven’t carefully read his response, but my sense was that he did have some sympathy for the anti marriage argument and I believe him when he says that the divorce revolution was a disaster.

  123. BillyS says:

    You have to have a beard to be masculine? I will never hit that nor would I want to. I tried it once in college and I looked like Kris Kringle. No thanks.

    I could stand to lose weight, but I got muscles from my dad, so I just have to focus on some weights to pick that back up again.

    No pink shirts will stay in my wardrobe though. Can’t stand that color, whatever people think of it.

  124. craig says:

    “But he doesn’t have a leg to stand on complaining that men aren’t marrying while being a champion of divorce.” Prager’s attitude must be easy come, easy go. I suspect his pro-divorce stance is an artifact of his Judaism. Remember, “Judeo” and “Christian” are not automatically simpatico; they only got linked by virtue-signallers, just as the same sort of people today refer to “Abrahamic” faiths in order to lend Islam social respectability. But Jesus explicitly contrasted His own instruction against the rabbinical tradition, reminding His hearers that Moses permitted divorce, but He said otherwise.

  125. Scott says:

    D-

    I would be very interested in you analysis of Prager. I started listening to him when I was 23 and still in LA where I grew up. He was very influential on my own philosophical development.

    I was a regular caller to his show, and I was credited for changing his mind on the topic of hunting/killing an animal and then eating it. When you hear him say now “everyone who eats meat should at least one time look into the eyes of the thing you are about to eat and kill it yourself” that is a result of several of our conversations on the radio.

    I have met him several times because he was present at a few events I went to in my proximal relationship to southern California republican party politics, through several organizations and my moms campaigns in the 90s.

    In the 20 + years since those days, I believe that he has been left behind by the statistics and is not willing to confront the realities of who/what is driving the destruction of marriage. I don’t think he is a bad guy. In fact, I think he is a pretty clear thinker in most cases. On the subject of cultural homogeneity, for example, he is coming around almost weekly in his columns. He knows America has the same right of self-determination that, for example, Israel does. He knows you cannot have a “nation” without a culture. Some of his most recent columns on the subject almost sound “red-pill.”

    But he is a standard issue “conservative” in many ways. Its just “old dog/new tricks” really. The psychological investment in the “marriage makes men better” narrative is too high. It is too great a hurdle to overcome. I believed right through my own frivorce. I admit, I have sympathy for him for the reasons above. I just think of these guys are ready to be put out to pasture. They don’t mean anything by this stuff. They really believe it, and are operating under assumptions that are no longer true.

  126. feeriker says:

    “Another tragic consequence is that more men will end up uncared for, unhappy, and unhealthy in later life—that is, if they make it into late life: unmarried men live almost 10 years less than stably married men”.

    Is he living on Pluto? Does he not know any Average Joes, guys married to bitchy, complaining, frigid, ungrateful ever-demanding harpies who are essentially legally contracted housemates? Women whose husbands could drop dead for all they care, as long as the life insurance premiums are paid up? Will these women seriously “care for” their husbands when they’re in their infirm final years? Or will they dump them in shit-hole nursing homes to rot and then walk away? Does Brad really think that there is ANY difference whatsoever between these poor bastards and guys who aren’t married?

    Here’s a free clue, Brad: both of these types of guys are going to die alone and on their own, the only difference being that the single ones will die in peace and quiet without the added burden of bitch-induced misery.

  127. They Call Me Tom says:

    Dalrock,
    I think Wilcox’s response shows some deliberate blinders in his thinking, it deserves some criticism because he’s playing the ‘I’m the intellectual in this conversation’ card, but he’s not actually following through intellectually. He does his best impression of the kid in ‘The Shining’, “….not there not there not there…”.

    He on one hand states that MGTOW comments tell him that divorce, initiated more often by women, and more rewarding to women are an issue to MGTOW more than ‘peter pan syndrome’ or ‘misogyny’… but then he goes full stop intellectually, finds the remote, changes the channel, and goes back to repeating the lines he’s rehearsed. Why even state the evidence if he doesn’t want to address it, was it a Freudian slip that he quickly supressed?

    I tend to go along with not making his appearance the issue. But his thought process and hesitation with getting to the truth of the matter when faced with the evidence are very worthy of criticism.

  128. MarcusD says:

    Single parent kids suffer more health issues – study
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1011675

    Stigma associated with virginity dealbreaker
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1011743

  129. Feminist Hater says:

    Another tragic consequence is that more men will end up uncared for, unhappy, and unhealthy in later life—that is, if they make it into late life: unmarried men live almost 10 years less than stably married men

    He’s a fruitcake. No fault divorce demolished the ‘you don’t want to die alone argument’. Demolished it, completely. Furthermore, have they not thought how stupid they sound when they keep on saying married men live longer than non-married men…. Well, hello, divorced men do even worse than never married men, coin toss option again I’m afraid. That ten years isn’t really worth it to begin with. You’re old, going to hospital, back and forward and the only thing keeping you doing that is a nag of a wife. Sure, you may find a golden goose, a rainbow farting unicorn or some other fairytale animal but your chances of that are so slim. Risk vs reward and these Trad Cons need to start realising that this risk vs reward calculation most men are making is drastically becoming a greater risk vs lesser risk calculation with no reward there at all.

    Greater risk being divorce and lesser risk being an unhappily married man. No reward means no reason to enter into it. Sorry guys, just the truth.

  130. Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus says:

    “He seems entirely oblivious to the sex dynamic that is in play.”

    It’s a testimony to how degraded our society has become that there is even a “sex dynamic” at all involving a “woman” that disgusting.

  131. LexSex says:

    For the father in the video: He is a typical junk father. His mentality is his daughter is a precious little snowflake fallen from heaven.if he was any good, he would have told her the truth. Then, when she marries an alpha male and he slaps her head off, the father will come out and say dont touch her or you should leave him angel.

  132. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Manners used to mean something.

  133. greyghost says:

    Scott
    men like Prager are guys that strove to make the best “buggy whip” even though gasoline powered cars came along they never left the test track to notice.. Those men strove for the best words and values to be cultural leaders in a society men better than them created. The society has changed and they being blue pill romantics have shown themselves as being parrots just mouthing words and ideas with out knowing why. Without red pill truth and masculinity founded on the scripture the modern conservative are blind pussy worshippers thinking they are strengthening the family. Hence the term cuckservative. What makes it worse they speak and act as cultural leaders. Any red pill christian man can run circles around those men in today’s society simply because a red pill mans ideas are founded in reality. Any man here can come up with laws,policy and cultural goals and values that are more effective spiritually and in real terms for marriage and family. In fact Chataeu Heartiste would make a much more effective cultural leader than any cuckservative.
    Dalrock it looks like you are going to have to find a preacher or someone the manosphere is going to to have to red pill into the new cultural cultural leader.

  134. Scott says:

    Great ghost-

    Well said. That’s kind of what I was getting at.

    Sometimes it feels like they are basing their entire philosophy on things that just aren’t true anymore — in this case the idea that there is some kind of status imbued into fathers, and then a whole bunch that would (if it were true) flow from that.

    But fathers are a joke. I know my kind of father/husbanding is. Most of my friends who read my blog think I am a monster or a dinosaur.

  135. Scott says:

    “imbued ONTO fathers” to make that make more sense.

  136. thedeti says:

    Here’s the link to Prager’s piece, which Dalrock referred to.

    http://www.dennisprager.com/being-more-compassionate-on-divorce/

  137. thedeti says:

    Prager’s argument seems to be as follows:

    1) It’s a myth that people are getting divorced “too easily”. Most divorces happen only after heroic efforts have been made to save the marriage, and the people divorcing probably should divorce anyway.

    2) High divorce rates don’t really mean society is declining.

    (a) A bad marriage is basically life imprisonment, and people should be able to leave bad marriages.

    (b) The fact that a person is divorced doesn’t mean she or he is a bad person. It takes only one person to leave a marriage.

    (c) Divorce isn’t too bad when there are no kids involved.

    (d) It’s better to marry and then divorce than it is never to marry at all. Marriage tends to make people grow up, and society needs more grownups.

    (e) When there are kids involved: It’s not the divorce that hurts the kids; it’s what the parents do to each other and the kids after the divorce that hurts the kids. Using kids as pawns, limiting visitation, dads leaving their kids’ lives, etc. Those are what do the damage, not the parents’ breakup.

    3. Divorce is bad, but that doesn’t mean society is coming apart at the seams. We need to have divorce reform, and parents divorcing need to be nicer to each other. Or something.
    _____________

    There’s a bit of self-soothing in this piece. Prager offered it up to soothe his own guilty conscience, I suspect. His reasoning is also facile and oversimplified, in my opinion. A bad marriage is often not “bad”, it’s an OK marriage that’s going through a rough patch of varying duration. the solution is to do what you can to get better and to ride out the rough spots, because things do tend to get better.

    I don’t think we should be encouraging people to marry because it will make them grow up. Not today, anyway. That might have been true 50 years ago, but it isn’t today. That doesn’t take realities on the ground into consideration. The apparatuses aren’t there to protect a man’s investment. The message should be “grow up first, then vet potential spouses carefully”, not “get married to the first person who tickles your fancy and then if it doesn’t work out, well, you’ll be a better person for it”.

  138. Scott says:

    Deti-

    That’s a good find. I did not realize he had actually put that argument to “paper.”

    Prager has been making that same argument (everyone I personally know going through divorce is doing the right thing) for 2+ decades.

    Even down to the “a bad marriage is like a prison sentence” part.

    Its weird reading it all laid out like that now. He does pay some lip service to the lopsided laws, but offers “joint custody” as the solution.

    It is easy, now so many years post being told “being married to you is like a prison sentence and I don’t think that’s what God wants for me” to see how horrible this line of reasoning is. But, with all of the underlying presuppositions that have to be blown up, it makes sense from his perspective.

  139. thedeti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “I haven’t seen (Wilcox’s)original video, and I haven’t carefully read his response, but my sense was that he did have some sympathy for the anti marriage argument.

    Kind of. He at first calls it a “Peter Pan” syndrome, symptomatic of men who don’t want to grow up and get married. He also plays the misogyny card. And he does point out that there’s a growing sentiment that marriage is a bad bet for men. But he doesn’t point out that that’s most of the reasoning behind opposition to marriage.

    Most men are shying away from marriage because they don’t want to get divorced. They don’t want to lose most of what they’ve worked for. They don’t want to end up in the poorhouse. They don’t want to be wage slaves. They don’t want to lose their relationships with their kids. They don’t want to end up as social pariahs, where everyone (including their own pastors and parents) blame them for the breakups of their marriages.

    These are guys who would happily sign on for marriage if it was a good deal. These are guys who would work hard at it if the odds of failure weren’t around 45%. (If 45% of planes crashed, who would fly them?)

  140. greyghost says:

    The number one reason for a man to shun marriage is those men are treated as criminals by law. There is no legal and cultural respect for a married family man. In all places they are seen and spoken of as homophobic abusers and dopes. And the laws are written and enforced as through it is fact. Husbands and fathers are vilified in all areas of society including weekly in church.

  141. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    Sometimes it feels like they are basing their entire philosophy on things that just aren’t true anymore — in this case the idea that there is some kind of status imbued into fathers, and then a whole bunch that would (if it were true) flow from that.

    But fathers are a joke. I know my kind of father/husbanding is. Most of my friends who read my blog think I am a monster or a dinosaur.

    The disconnect is that the man up video is selling what isn’t on offer (respect). Divorce law and the family courts are merely the legal machinery formally expressing that lack of respect for men who marry and father children. I haven’t been able to really go through the two videos (man up and MGTOW response), but I strongly suspect that neither side comes out and states the core argument (Prager/Wilcox: marry and you will get respect. MGTOW: Don’t trust the used car salesmen promising respect if you marry, they are frauds and have neither the intention nor the ability to honor their promises.)

    But this is the core argument. I can say this without having viewed the videos simply because there is no other way to sell marriage to men. Men crave respect, and even the “peter pan” shaming is really a backhanded way of promising respect if you do as they say.

    What I think Prager and Wilcox understand at a gut level, even if they can’t put their finger on it, is their sales pitch is doomed to fail.

    There is a parallel here to the military. Just like with marriage, feminists covet the respect men earn from the sacrifices they make to defend their country. All of the “inclusion” reworking of the military (marching the men around in high heels, putting women in all combat roles, promoting open homosexuality and transgender) is at the core about envy of this position of respect. Just like with marriage, once feminists and their SJW allies are truly successful in removing the respect for men who serve, conservatives like Prager and Wilcox will find themselves making the same losing sales pitch for joining the military.

  142. Feminist Hater says:

    I remember a man who visited my mother for treatment many years ago. I remember it quite well because I was a very, very young lad and remember asking her about the funny sock the man had on the went right up to his thigh…

    He stepped on a mine during the Border war and lost a leg and a couple fingers. Was sent to her for rehabilitation. After rehab and fitment of a prosthesis, he tried to get his life back on track. Eventually his wife left him and he died alone of cancer at the age of 53.

    Wilcox can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

  143. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    nailed it. There is no respect for the respectable man. It is destroying western civilization more effectively than the war.

  144. Linx says:

    “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” Karl Marx

  145. Gunner Q says:

    Kevin @ May 22, 2016 at 2:48 pm:
    “Do you guys put some vicious game face on for your professional photographs?”

    I do now. I used to smile and cross my hands in front of me because that’s what everybody told me to do, but now being Red Pill the smile is gone and my body language is assertive. And my pink shirt is GONE (shudder).

    Alpha/Beta is a metric of dominance and manipulation not success as a human being. So yes, it’s possible and reliable to look at a posed-for picture and see what “vibe” the guy is choosing to project for eternity. Neither dominance nor manipulation is an inherently bad trait–that is a major belief of Churchianity–and in fact, we Christian men have a divine calling to be dominant over women. We also, for example, manipulate people every time we evangelize. All those hospitals we built in Christ’s name, we built them in order to make Christ look good, at least before “501c3 charity for the good of (vibrant) humanity” became the true purpose of the Church. That’s another major belief of Churchianity, that Christ supports charity instead of charity supporting Christ.

    craig @ May 22, 2016 at 10:15 pm:
    “I suspect his pro-divorce stance is an artifact of his Judaism. Remember, “Judeo” and “Christian” are not automatically simpatico; they only got linked by virtue-signallers, just as the same sort of people today refer to “Abrahamic” faiths in order to lend Islam social respectability. But Jesus explicitly contrasted His own instruction against the rabbinical tradition, reminding His hearers that Moses permitted divorce, but He said otherwise.”

    You nailed it. I remember once reading Prager claim that pornography isn’t bad so long as it’s kept discreet. The idea was porn is bad but if you’re going to do it, do it quietly so nobody else knows or is affected. I also recall his strongest words against Christians tended to be criticisms of our getting all worked up over the private indiscretions of our elected officials, for example the Lewinsky scandal. He saw no connection between Bill Clinton breaking his marital vows and his trustworthiness for high office.

    Perfect examples of Pharisee thinking.

  146. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    Wilcox acknowledges the harm caused by the divorce revolution to young men yet still thinks they should marry. He offers no advice on how a man can protect himself from the kind of disasters they’ve seen. Why is he so obsessed with making sure men marry come hell or high water?

    Notice his original video talked about how great marriage is for men and only after getting called out admits that divorce may put a damper on it for some men. His video was propaganda, not instructional on how men can marry wisely or some of the incredible risks involved.

    His response to criticisms was absolutely bizarre.

  147. thedeti says:

    Dalrock:

    You’re correct that the videos don’t set out the core argument. I have watched them, and the stated arguments are:

    Prager U: Married men have better lives. They grow up and mature, get a clearer sense of their place in the world, earn more money, have the advice/encouragement of wives, live longer, have higher quality of life, and employers prefer to promote married men.

    MGTOW: Married men are shackled to one-sided contracts with no benefits and all detriments for men. All they do and are is taken from them and benefits others, not themselves.

    I think Prager and Wilcox don’t state the argument “get married and get respect” because men can look around them and see that just isn’t the case. MGTOW doesn’t state the argument “you don’t get respect if you marry” because men don’t want to admit to the world that they want respect and don’t get it through interactions with others.

  148. Cane Caldo says:

    @thedeti

    Thanks for the link.

    @Scott

    But, with all of the underlying presuppositions that have to be blown up, it makes sense from his perspective.

    Whatever his reasons and presuppositions, here is the reality: He took money to encourage millions of people to divorce simply if they were uncomfortable. He took money to call others–who worried about divorce–“foolish”, and with prestige he publicly misled three clergy to follow him. He was paid to commit spiritual, mental, emotional, economic and in-every-way-but-material arson. He did it happily, and it’s all on tape.

    Until he asks for forgiveness and mercy, I see no reason to defend him.

  149. thedeti says:

    @ The Question:

    Folks like Prager and Wilcox are obsessed with getting men married off because they truly believe it’s best for men. They believe men should keep doing the same things they’ve always done because it worked for them years ago. They also do not see the detriments to men. Note that in Wilcox’ piece where he addresses the MGTOW response video, he says, essentially, yeah, I get it, lots of men see marriage as a bad deal, and the divorce revolution is bad, but men should still get married because it’s good for them and because if they don’t, their kids will be as disconnected as they are.

    (As an aside, it’s also because women are complaining very loudly in media, to their pastors/rabbis, and to anyone who will listen, that they want to get married (someday) and that those dastardly men aren’t cooperating.)

    What Wilcox doesn’t do is offer up any real solutions for men. He just parrots the same thing, and insists that despite his opponents’ arguments, men should still get married. That’s where he loses credibility, in my view. He has no real argument other than “I know there’s these bad things, but you should still get married. I know the risks are much worse, but you should still voluntarily encounter the risks.” It’s a lot like the traditional arguments at other sites, like Orthosphere.org, where the party line seems to be “marriage is fraught with danger, and it’s worse than it used to be, but you should still do it for the good of society.”

  150. Scott says:

    Well, he’s not Christian, so I doubt he will be called to that kind of repentance.

    He is self described “deeply religious conservative (the denomination) Jew.”

    That’s kind of what I meant by “from his perspective.”

    I am obligated to understand marriage/divorce from a Christian perspective, and since we now have a society whose overarching value is “who are you to judge me?” its all I have.

  151. Scott says:

    “marriage is fraught with danger, and it’s worse than it used to be, but you should still do it for the good of society.”

    This is an important observation you make. For those of us who are encouraging our sons to do sacramental (only) marriages, it has nothing to do with “society.” It has to do with the faith in exile at this point.

  152. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    Well, he’s not Christian, so I doubt he will be called to that kind of repentance.

    Isn’t everyone called to that kind of repentance?

    I am obligated to understand marriage/divorce from a Christian perspective, and since we now have a society whose overarching value is “who are you to judge me?” its all I have.

    So not every son of Adam needs to repent from sinfulness? Is God’s word (including Its words on marriage) only good for Christians? Is it not the real truth, but only one truth of many, or merely a Christian truth? Another way to say “Christian perspective” is “Christ’s perspective, isn’t it? We may lack Christ’s clarity of vision, but must not we admit (at the very least) that Christ said “You are to see it this way.”; that there is only one perspective; one truth?

    When society says “who are you to judge”, we should recognize that they don’t mean judge, but perceive, or observe. In other words: They lie, and by lying mean to tell us to shut our eyes. No one is threatening to physically harm or even impede Prager. There is no sentencing phase of observation. Since when does reserve judgment mean defend, and should we listen to liars in the first place?

    I think the answer to those questions means that we have a good deal more than “who are you to judge me?”.

  153. Scott says:

    Cane:

    Agreed. I guess I am saying, its not likely that he will all of the sudden walk into an Orthodox (Christian) church and announce “I read something these two cooks on Dalrocks site wrote and was convicted!”

    Even though that would be glorious and exactly what should happen.

  154. PuffyJacket says:

    Wonder if make a sammich she can

    Not sure, but the evidence is she certainly knows how to eat them. Also note the hideous calf tattoo. That’s just the icing on the cake.

  155. greyghost says:

    A man should never marry for the good of society. Doing that just enables a failed society. A man should make being a married man respected by that society for the good of society. The rest will fall into place with all of the love and romance graved by all parties that marry.

  156. greyghost says:

    craved

  157. PokeSalad says:

    A middle aged man devoting his life to career and family with a loving supporting wife is going to look soft and flabby just because spending your time at the gym is time not spent elsewhere being productive.

    Pure projection/bullshit. Is that what you tell yourself when you look at your gut?

    There is no more excuse for a man to be soft and flabby than for a woman, so don’t rationalize like they do. “I have the kids all day” “Im stuck at home” “Its my genes” blah blah

  158. Dalrock says:

    I was able to watch both videos all the way through a few times over lunch. As I expected, the “Be a man. Get married.” video is selling respect. This is clear from the very title, and you can see it through the “Doug Taulbee” example that is core to the argument. Doug started off as a teenager working a low status job while living in his parent’s basement. Then he goes from being an irresponsible teenager to being a man, a husband and father. Next, being married leads him to join the military, taking him another rung up the (supposed) respect ladder. Then he climbs again by leaving the military and becoming sales manager of a car dealership, etc.

    This focus is true throughout the video, subtly or not subtly promising respect should a man choose to marry and become a father. This shouldn’t be a surprise, because this is all that Prager and Wilcox have to work with. They can’t argue that marriage has moral meaning, because the definition of marriage they are selling has no moral meaning whatsoever. It truly is just a piece of paper, formally registering boyfriend and girlfriend status. In theory it enforces a “one at a time” sexual morality, but even this isn’t true (at least legally), as we have gone to great lengths to avoid having marriage law pronounce adultery as immoral, including in the family courts.

    Likewise, Turd Flinging Monkey’s rebuttal is most effective when he points out that the married father isn’t really respected; it could be even more effective if he were more deliberate in this way, but either way he very clearly gets this message across.

  159. Darwinian Arminian says:

    If you really do see the “divorce revolution” as a bad thing and want to push back against it, then at some point you’re going to have to one of two things:

    1) Acknowledge the realities of a system corrupted by feminism.
    2) Begin holding women accountable for the actions they take.

    Wilcox is almost chronically allergic to doing either of these, and that makes him an exceptionally poor choice to lead a charge against a divorce culture. It’s also why his “Maxim Masculinity” response article rang so hollow. Go read the piece again. Notice how at not even one point is he willing to acknowledge the increased risks men will face in entering marriage, or the crushing punishments that await those who end up losing at the game. For him, the main thing to mourn is that his society and — and in particular, its women — can no longer count on having enough men to work harder and produce more for their sake. He has no need to notice that those same men will do so for a society that refuses to respond to their sacrifice with anything like respect or gratitude because for Wilcox that sort of selflessness is just how men naturally ought to be. This is how deep he is in blue-pill coma.

    This isn’t even a new thing for him. For a great look at how he thinks, read his piece, “The Right and Campus Rape,” which he posted after news of the UVA rape story broke — and before it was exposed for the cheap hoax that it was. Please try not to snicker at his deep sense of heartbreak:

    “I understand, and share, my fellow conservatives’ concerns about the ways in which federal and university responses to the sexual-assault crisis can trample the rights of the accused in cases of sexual assault. Both here at UVA and elsewhere, media reports suggest that students — usually men — are being suspended or expelled without due process . . .

    . . . And yet: I cannot shake the image of “Jackie” being serially raped on a broken glass table by a fraternity gang a few hundred yards from my office at UVA, perhaps by men who have taken a class by me, especially knowing that her rapists have paid no legal or educational price for their heinous deeds. My own sense of horror and outrage is only deepened by what I found out yesterday: In my Sociology of the Family class, in an anonymous survey, seven of the 103 female students that I am teaching reported that they had been “forced into a sexual act against [their] will,” and an additional 33 of these students reported that a “UVA friend” has experienced such a violation. So, in one large class at the University of Virginia, fully 39 percent of the female students report having been directly affected by forcible sexual assault.”

    It never occurred to Wilcox to ask any questions about the outlandishness of “Jackie’s” rape story, just as it will also never occur to him to consider that the rape statistics he flaunts would end up being just as fake as her story was. He would likewise never realize that he’d been completely willing to disregard the rights of the campus men, even when he did so for what turned out to be an act of fraud. That is because his default worldview is one that aligns perfectly with that of modern feminism; a world where women would never suffer were it not for the actions of lazy and predatory men. You will never convince him that the men are not nearly so bad as the feminists paint them to be, nor are the women as innocent as they might claim they are. Professor Wilcox simply wants to believe.

    He will shed more tears over a woman’s fake rape story than he will over any pain from a generation of men fed through the divorce meat-grinder. Brad Wilcox cares nothing for men, only for the work or the profits that he can wring out of them. It’s high time that men started regarding “leaders” like him in a similar fashion.

  160. Darwinian Arminian says:

    BTW, Wilcox’s sad and sorry UVA piece that I referenced is available here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393529/right-and-campus-rape-w-bradford-wilcox

  161. Feminist Hater says:

    I hope Brad Wilcox continues to expose the scam of marriage and feminist rape statistics! Think of how many more millions of men are woken up by just hearing him preach, or hearing him speak on the many rape hoaxes on college campuses. It’s heart warming. Come on Brad, you can’t be done yet. Do another video, pretty please, in your best monotone mumbling yet!

  162. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    Good analysis of the videos.

    What strikes me as very odd is his use of the phrase “Be a man. Get married.” in the title.

    This isn’t something you say to a person when you’re trying to encourage or when you tell them about something they’d like to do. It is an order/command/directive telling someone to do something they don’t want to do because it doesn’t benefit them.

    Nobody needs to tell me to man up and lift weights every morning, buy guns, drink good beer or climb mountains with breathtaking scenery even though they all have costs associated with them. There are clear and perceivable benefits and value to me if I do these things so I do them in spite of the costs without outside pressure or shaming.

    So when men need to be told to man up it’s because there is no perceived value for them. But we are not allowed as a society to acknowledge this because then it would require us collectively to confront the culprit, which is feminism. This would also bring up the unpleasant reality that women benefit from the current setup. As Rollo Tomassi has pointed out, everyone thinks only blue-haired freaks espouse SJW beliefs but chances are the pretty sweet girl at work or next to you in church also holds those views as well. Under the right circumstances they will express them in their own way.

    The “man up” mantra is a call to sacrifice for the sake of someone else, plain and simple. Yet the idea that marriage benefits men is the premise of Wilcox’s video, and his reply to MGTOWs can’t help but use the “man up” card once more.

    I’ve mentioned this before but it’s really the most obvious telltale sign that marriage advocates have no leg to stand on. They know on some level that there is no reason for young men to marry but there are reasons that others would want them to marry. Even Wilcox admits in his reply that no-fault divorce is horrible but isn’t going away anytime soon.

    So the question becomes, “How do you trick them into sacrificing their own interests for the sake of others without consciously realizing it?”

    His weak response shows that the pretense is falling apart.

  163. Anon says:

    Darwinian Armenian,

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393529/right-and-campus-rape-w-bradford-wilcox

    That might as well have been written by someone at NOW. Those still inclined to give Brad Wilcox a pass should read that.

  164. Anon says:

    Gents, it is quite simple. Someone like Brad Wilcox says ‘marriage is a bad deal for men, yet men should still marry’. Can anyone really envision him saying that women have to do their part, and have obligations too?

    He does not come anywhere close to saying the laws should be changed. He mentions ‘no fault’ , but not that most divorces are by women. He surely will never mention custody/CS as a factor.

  165. greyghost says:

    Anon
    I wouldn’t count on women for anything. This is about law and government. Marriage isn’t bad become some cunt won’t fuck me or is mad at me. Marriage is bad because the government makes it so at gun point.

  166. feeriker says:

    Gents, it is quite simple. Someone like Brad Wilcox says ‘marriage is a bad deal for men, yet men should still marry’. Can anyone really envision him saying that women have to do their part, and have obligations too?

    Once again: threatpoint

    If Brad told the truth about marriage, if he forcefully insisted that women started acting like wives and contributing their fair share to the marital arrangement starting with his own marriage, he’d be a single man again faster than he can stain his pink shirt, living by himself in a fleabag studio apartment and eating rahmen noodles three times per day. Brad knows this, even if only subconsciously, and surely knows that most young men have better sense than to put themselves in his position. But misery can’t stand to be alone. Thus the whiny, pathetic demands that men geld themselves like he’s done.

  167. thedeti said, “Most men are shying away from marriage because they don’t want to get divorced. They don’t want to lose most of what they’ve worked for. They don’t want to end up in the poorhouse. They don’t want to be wage slaves. They don’t want to lose their relationships with their kids. They don’t want to end up as social pariahs, where everyone (including their own pastors and parents) blame them for the breakups of their marriages.”

    Most of all, they don’t want to invest their chunk of their life in a woman that will tear them down and betray them.

  168. SirHamster says:

    I have listened some to Prager in the past (mostly before I started blogging) and enjoyed his program outside of his “men/women” focused programs. But he doesn’t have a leg to stand on complaining that men aren’t marrying while being a champion of divorce. If I have some time this week maybe I’ll write a short post on it.

    I last heard from Prager in “Why Be Happy”.

    “Happiness is a moral issue because being raised by parents in an unhappy marriage is no fun.”

    Another key point for his video is that unhappiness is like bad breath, which makes other people uncomfortable. Moral obligation because you’ll interrupt other people’s fun and comfort.

    I was disgusted. It is disconnected with the reality of a suffering world. There are reasons to be joyful and even cheerful despite adversity and affliction. His reasons are not.

  169. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    * I thought that Prager was a (denominationally) orthodox Jew, not a conservative Jew. That was was a (politically) conservative Jew.

    * Prager’s views on happiness seem unBiblical. The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that life if a vale of tears. Adam and Eve are told their lives will be painful. Job’s life was painful. The Bible is full of suffering.

    * Prager’s view that we’re morally obligated to be happy, ironically, echoes the Jewish atheist Ayn Rand. The difference is that Rand see happiness as a selfish obligation to oneself, whereas Prager (flipping Rand on her head) sees happiness as an altruistic obligation toward others.

    Jeff Walker’s book, The Ayn Rand Cult, analyzed Rand’s many influences, including Jewish culture. Walker found many parallels between Rand’s atheistic Objectivist values and those of Jewish culture. So it’s curious, but perhaps unsurprising, that Prager echoes Rand.

    Among other things, Walker observes that Judaism doesn’t value poverty and self-denial as much as does Christianity. Judaism also places greater emphasis on the material world, on improving it and living a happy life, and less emphasis on an afterlife. Many religious Jews don’t even believe in an afterlife.

  170. MarcusD says:

    Stigma associated with virginity dealbreaker
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1011743

    The Prager video would likely be popular on CAF (the “man up” refrain, etc).

  171. Opus says:

    Happiness is overrated – and tends to be something one only recognises in hindsight: drug-users and drinkers might be said to be happy but that is surely no recommendation for their concomitant euphoria or their behaviour. Much if not all of human success – both mundane and exceptional – is achieved by men in the face of considerable adversity. The inclusion in your Declaration of Independence of an ambition to pursue happiness was surely a regrettable mistake of Jefferson. Those of us who live in a ‘cloud-enshadowed land’* are unlikely to feel the possibility or even sense of seeking to be happy. In a land where one ‘mustn’t grumble’, and where all problems can be solved or at least made manageable with a cup-of-tea spiced with a little milk, Happiness is seen as bad-form or boastfulness and such a person will have to be brought down for their own and everyone elses good. Americans are always so infuriatingly up-beat but what can one expect of a nation that sees Tea as medicinal.

    CAF is the site that keeps on giving. I always turn to see what that so appropriately named harridan Xantippe – for she must thus recognise her awfulness – has to say if only to enjoy being appalled by her misandry.

    Marriage is, as Professor Prager says, a wonderful institution and I thoroughly recommend it – for other men. Happily, no one wants me, in fact I could not even give myself away even with some bride-price. It may however be different in Virginia where women are clearly beating a path to men’s doors only to be cruelly turned away. A divorced woman remains a catch and has become a victim and thus worthy to be wifed-up; a divorced man is a loser and somewhere between a plague-survivor and a convicted sex-offender. Are you feeling lucky? Well are you?

    * according to Mary Shelley

  172. Dalrock says:

    @Darwinian Arminian

    BTW, Wilcox’s sad and sorry UVA piece that I referenced is available here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393529/right-and-campus-rape-w-bradford-wilcox

    I hadn’t seen that. He really went all in on the campus rape hysteria.

  173. Heidi_storage says:

    @MarcusD That thread is weird even for CAF. No one, to my knowledge, has suggested that a nonvirgin is going to have a more difficult time bonding to her husband than a virgin is–and if someone did suggest such a thing, I’m pretty sure they would get jumped on.

  174. buckyinky says:

    Not unrelated to the OP I think: it’s hard to know what is going on in the mind of the authoress of this article, but whatever it is it seems crazy. One wonders whether she is dissatisfied with the fact that decapitations of Christians on youtube are almost exclusively of males?

  175. Opus said, “CAF is the site that keeps on giving. I always turn to see what that so appropriately named harridan Xantippe – for she must thus recognise her awfulness – has to say if only to enjoy being appalled by her misandry.”

    You’re attributing introspection to the type of person where that isn’t found. More likely, she’s see Xantippe as a Proto-Feminist and a role model. Xantippe in her eyes, is a “strong, independent woman” and busting the balls off one of the philosophical forefathers of Western Civilization is a high mark of Feminist credentials. A complete lack of self-awareness to the irony of this is a feature, not a bug of a woman’s psychology.

  176. It’s amazing the commenters on that CAF thread recognize that say, bad spending habits are indicative of a mental/moral failing, but promiscuity is not likewise indicative. Do they think that feelings of infatuation make sexual sins uniquely different from others?

  177. Gunner Q says:

    Opus @ 4:41 am:
    “The inclusion in your Declaration of Independence of an ambition to pursue happiness was surely a regrettable mistake of Jefferson.”

    He should have gone with John Locke’s original ‘pursuit of virtue’. At the time, the two words were basically synonyms.

  178. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Regarding virgins and bonding, I’m reminded of the Willie Nelson song, “To All the Girls I’ve Loved Before,” a romantic paean to remembrance of past lovers.

    And yes, it’s different for a woman, in that her previous remembrances are that much more passionate. Imagine being married to an Alpha Widow who pines away the days, fondly recalling her many past lovers, thinking each one special in his own way. And you, her husband, are just another of her many lovers.

    A man wants to be special and bonded to his wife, even those manginas who regurgitate Oprah’s talking points and pretend to shrug off their wives’ past lovers. Manginas who pretend to be liberated, modern men, rather than “Neanderthals” who think they “own” their wives’ bodies and affections.

  179. gdgm+ says:

    Re: Wilcox, I’m not feeling so much “hate” for him, but deep disappointment. I used to follow him a bit more closely, and even commented about him on Dalrock’s blog in the past. Yet, going through some of Wilcox’s writings and the current “Be A Man” video being discussed… alas, Wilcox, Prager et al didn’t have an “answer” for what a friend of mine went through, as I wrote on Dalrock’s blog back in July 2012:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/will-betas-shrug/#comment-43448

    Since then, I have “counseled” additional frivorced men, listening to them, offering comments when asked, buying them a beer or two and letting them “vent”. And, sadly, the most devout, hardworking and praying men often were the most blindsided when their wives filed. These were mature men with good jobs (engineers, tech salesmen, doctors), kids, mortgages and bills. They were married in their 20s (and some of them urged me to get married then, questioning why I didn’t), and we had some… interesting and sometimes awkward conversations after their wives left them in their 40s and early 50s. They are NOT “men out there who harbor a deeply misogynistic view of the opposite sex, an unremittingly negative view of love and commitment, and a complete lack of faith in marriage to deliver on their deepest dreams and desires,” as Wilcox wrote. Sad!

  180. feeriker says:

    I hadn’t seen that. He really went all in on the campus rape hysteria.

    Is there any evidence that he has acknowledged the lies and falsehoods behind the rape hysteria, as well as his error and haste in believing it to be true? If not, I think this adversely impacts his credibility.

  181. Jim says:

    I hadn’t seen that. He really went all in on the campus rape hysteria.

    So this guy is really nothing more than a leftist, pussy-worshiping, feminist disguised as a “conservative”. This guy isn’t a man. He’s just a castrated male.

  182. White Guy says:

    Jim, the word you are looking for in eunuch. He must be angling for a National Policy Advisor slot with the administration…

  183. PokeSalad says:

    “The inclusion in your Declaration of Independence of an ambition to pursue happiness was surely a regrettable mistake of Jefferson.”

    “Pursuit of happiness” and “pursuit of pleasure” are not the same thing.

  184. Poke you have ID’d another problem with gynocentrism vs. patriarchy.

    Men appreciate that pursuit of happiness is different than pursuit of pleasure. More often women do not. So when a society tilts towards women and away from men and the very definitions that comprise our founding, they become changed into something entirely different. Pursuit of happiness is immediately used to justify the “pursuit of pleasure.” How else to explain the overwhelming support for abortion? A woman will not be stopped from pursuing her pleasure so abortion becomes a right else you interfere with her pursuit of happiness (pleasure).

    Want more examples? See “Rape” which used to mean a violent physical assault. Now if you buy a girl a drink (or give her a pill or smoke a joint with your wife before sex) then if the girl decides a decade later that she didn’t actually like what happened that night she can claim: “He drugged me to obtain my compliance.”

    The words become changed, feminized, and based on individual feelings and emotion rather than objective definitions.

  185. Herpus McDerpington the III says:

    “Hello 911? My actions had consequences, that’s not supposed to happen, I’m a girl!”

    Form a youtube comment in a video when man hits back.

  186. Jimmy says:

    I hadn’t seen that. He really went all in on the campus rape hysteria.

    And apparently never recanted either, as far as anyone can tell. No real interest in preserving due process or preventing false accusation (let alone punishing false accusers)…

  187. MarcusD says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    even those manginas who regurgitate Oprah’s talking points and pretend to shrug off their wives’ past lovers. Manginas who pretend to be liberated, modern men, rather than “Neanderthals” who think they “own” their wives’ bodies and affections.

    “AdamPeter” is a good example of that on the CAF thread. The mewling (and total lack of a cogent argument) on his part is not likely to endear outside observers to his position(s).

  188. BubbaCluck says:

    “The inclusion in your Declaration of Independence of an ambition to pursue happiness was surely a regrettable mistake of Jefferson.”
    I had always understood that the original intent was, “pursuit of property” and not “pursuit of happiness”.

  189. Scott says:

    Since then, I have “counseled” additional frivorced men, listening to them, offering comments when asked, buying them a beer or two and letting them “vent”. And, sadly, the most devout, hardworking and praying men often were the most blindsided when their wives filed. These were mature men with good jobs (engineers, tech salesmen, doctors), kids, mortgages and bills. They were married in their 20s (and some of them urged me to get married then, questioning why I didn’t), and we had some… interesting and sometimes awkward conversations after their wives left them in their 40s and early 50s. They are NOT “men out there who harbor a deeply misogynistic view of the opposite sex, an unremittingly negative view of love and commitment, and a complete lack of faith in marriage to deliver on their deepest dreams and desires,” as Wilcox wrote. Sad!

    Are you in the mental health field? This has been my experience (and my personal story matches it). I am looking for mental health providers who are willing to stick their necks out and help develop a “red-pill” Christian therapeutic modality for this sick world.

  190. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    ““AdamPeter” is a good example of that on the CAF thread. The mewling (and total lack of a cogent argument) on his part is not likely to endear outside observers to his position(s).”

    @MarcusD…Yeah and the OP’s attitude and view of women for only what they can give him is devoid of any sense of compassion and christian spirit. It also probably won’t endear many women to him.

  191. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    @MarcusD I would note as well that you are ok with debating my manhood but won’t question some of the posters on this thread who refer to women as “bags of lard, bitches etc.”
    If that’s how you talk about women then it’s not my manhood or manliness I would be worried about.

  192. Anon says:

    Adam Peter Conroy,

    @MarcusD…Yeah and the OP’s attitude and view of women for only what they can give him is devoid of any sense of compassion and christian spirit. It also probably won’t endear many women to him.

    er…. most of the men here, including Dalrock, are happily married men with children.

    By placing women on a pedestal (only because of your extreme fear of their perceived disapproval*), you prove yourself to be un-Christian as well as clueless about women.

    *invoking certain types of disapproval in women is the key to them becoming attracted to you. Pedestalizing women is repulsive to them. It appears you have not figured this out yet.

  193. Scott says:

    Mychael and I were kicked off CAF sometime ago for “pushing our courtship site” so I have not been there in a while.

    Sounds like the usual suspects are up their same old shenanigans.

  194. Anon says:

    I hadn’t seen that. He really went all in on the campus rape hysteria.

    With that ‘campus rape’ article, Mr. Wilcox has gone from ‘well-meaning but exceedingly blue-pill, clueless Tradcon’ to ‘bonafide example of cartoonish chivalry’.

    I would like to see Art Deco defend him now.

  195. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    “Men should marry for the Good of Society”?!? [That’s, If I follow the thread correctly, that’s thedeti paraphrasing Wilcox & Orthosphere.org (et al.)]

    Help me out here: what is this “Society” of which Wilcox/Orthophere.org speak? Is it not ~50% men? In implicitly acknowledging (but subconsciously realizing he can never expressly state) that men aren’t marrying because there is nothing it is for them, net-net, is he not implictly admitting that it is bad for 50% of “Society”, right off the bat?

    So for the “Good” of whom, then? Whom, oh whom, oh whom?!? Gosh, what a poser this one is …

    Hmmm.

    [ponder, ponder, think, contemplate]

    Hmmm.

    [think, meditate, cogitate, analyze, ponder, think]

    Hmmm.

    Sorry, gentlemen, I simply cannot figure out whom it is that they might mean by “Society”, here …

    [Lightbulb!]

    “[…] marriage is fraught with danger, and it’s worse than it used to be, but [men] should still do it for the good of society women.”

    There we go! Fixed!

    Leading (now that there is clarity, perhaps) to the question: why? What have women as a social class done to earn it or deserve it? What do they do to maintain or preserve it (i.e., marriage, on average, as a social class)? In what obvious ways are they edifying it, right now in 2016?

    It is something women claim they don’t need, but to which women feel entitled (on their timelines alone), and for which women are ungrateful — on average — once the man commits his life to it.

    Yet men should risk life, health, wealth, family relationships, children’s well-being and their own social status, in exchange for nothing (not even sex, food or mere kindness), and take up this burden, for the good of “society”, i.e., these same women.

    So, again, as others ask up-thread: … Why?

    The intellectual evasiveness others have pointed out in the commentary here isn’t a bug, it’s a feature: sane, honest people cannot consciously hold to these sorts of irreconcilable ideas, consciously.

    So, the choices are ditch the ideas, or else go crazy, or be consciously dishonest, or go unconscious.

    Hence, that’s why the evasiveness: it’s a choice, at some level of awareness, to go unconscious.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  196. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    In reply to several commenters, above, re: Jefferson’s preamble to the Declaration of Independence — which is better, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, or “Wife, Garnishment, and the Pursuit of Unhaaaaaaaaaappiness”?

  197. BillyS says:

    Yac-Yac, what we have now may be lousy, but it is not as bad as things get. We are still living on the fumes of a past society. Society is worth maintaining, even if this particular one is wacky.

    Do you really want to go back to primitive times?

  198. feeriker says:

    Do you really want to go back to primitive times?

    Say what you will about how awful life was in “primitive times,” but at least men weren’t systematically disrespected as a sex. Women, although perhaps “commoditized,” weren’t pedestalized either.

  199. gdgm+ says:

    to Scott @ May 24, 2016 at 4:28 pm:

    Alas, no I am not “in the mental health field”; the frivorced men are colleagues / co-workers / friends of mine over the years. I did make a “good luck to you” comment on your past Courtship Pledge blog, and occasionally read your current https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/ blog. I should probably post over there sometime soon!

  200. greyghost says:

    Do you really want to go back to primitive times?

    That is where we are going anyway.

  201. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Regarding marriage as being for “the good of society,” Dennis Prager would define “society” as not just women, but as the children, the economy, national security, and overall “social stability.”

    Prager has said the usual stuff … that marriage makes men more mature, more productive (good for the economy), more likely to make sacrifices to protect their families (good for national security), and that children raised with fathers are less likely to be criminals, and more likely to grow up to be similarly well educated, productive people (creating overall social stability).

    Prager’s disconnect is that he extols marriage while also promoting divorce. It doesn’t occur to him that only secure, intact marriages — marriages without the threatpoints of easy no-fault divorce, and the stripping men of their children and money — bring those societal benefits.

    Prager imagines you can have easy divorce, and still have children raised by strong fathers. He seems stupidly unaware of how mothers use the children as weapons against the father. Prager assumes a world of happy marriages and happy divorces, with the fathers still in the picture.

  202. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    In summary, Prager says that married men and fathers are stakeholders in society — they have a strong, vested interest in seeing that America remains safe, prosperous, and secure. Whereas single men are more likely to remain selfish (e.g. Peter Pans).

    Prager has also said that men need a purpose in life. That purpose can be his family. But if a man is unmarried and without child, he will seek other purposes. Sometimes noble purposes (charity, creative work, business), but often frivolous purposes (video games, partying, the Playboy lifestyle), or even destructive purposes (criminal gangs, fringe cults, or radical politics).

  203. BillyS says:

    feeriker,

    Say what you will about how awful life was in “primitive times,” but at least men weren’t systematically disrespected as a sex. Women, although perhaps “commoditized,” weren’t pedestalized either.

    and greyghost,

    That is where we are going anyway.

    I do not believe it will get to that. I despise a great deal about today’s society, but I have no desire to do without running water, indoor plumbing and many of the other things like that. We are more likely to step into some form of dictatorship than to step all the way back to living under the stars. Too much at stake to get there, if anyone can do anything about it.

    Perhaps it is all doomed, but I don’t see that and would not wish that.

    None of that means the road to the future will be simple. What can’t continue won’t continue and things will change because they must, at some point. That point can often be farther off than seems possible, but change can also come quite quickly when the conditions merit. Those changes don’t have to be completely desired or even favorable, to happen either.

  204. Jim says:

    So I guess Isaac Newton and even St. Paul were “Peter Pans” and “selfish” right? Lol. Do these idiots ever listen to themselves?

    It’s amazing. It’s so dangerous for men to get married or even live with a woman these days but who cares right? Jump off that 10-story building. You just might live. Drive drunk. Not all drunk drivers kill someone in an accident every single time they drive so just go for it!

    Are these people really that stupid or do they think women are some kind of divine beings so who cares if they destroy men’s lives just because they feel like it? These morons crack me up.

    Oh, and also the charge of “misogyny” anytime a man dares to say anything that isn’t in absolute perfect reverence to her holiness.

  205. greyghost says:

    I think we need to get away from women on this. Women are just doing what women do. never in history have women been given what today’s women have successfully. There is a reason. All of this teach women shit is and will go no where. Women are women just as cuckservative teachings and values require sound laws and culture to be successful the focus on women and their behavior requires the same. Counting on the morality and common sense of women is stupid and just plain irresponsible and lazy. It is the law and government policy running the show.

  206. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    “By placing women on a pedestal (only because of your extreme fear of their perceived disapproval*), you prove yourself to be un-Christian as well as clueless about women.

    *invoking certain types of disapproval in women is the key to them becoming attracted to you. Pedestalizing women is repulsive to them. It appears you have not figured this out yet”

    Yeah, women hate that shit. I should really start beating my wife and referring to her as ‘bitch’. She’d love that much more that actually treating her like a lady.
    You people are not Christian in any sense of the word. Your views on women are what’s repulsive.

  207. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    “Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

    From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  208. greyghost says:

    Adam Peter Conroy
    Are you trying the “playing dumb game”
    Ignorance is not bliss and it damn sure is not a Christian virtue. You’re parroting off stuff with out knowing why.
    Something brought you here. So to start with you need to first understand. A man does not have to hate women to know and openly speak of the basic nature of women. A blue pill chump that pedestalizes women does. That is why you projected all of that hate for women onto the men here. As far as you know no man speaks like that about women unless he hates,disrespects or some other negative connotation of terms in regards to women. A masculine man of faith can speak truth fully and still love her.

  209. Linx says:

    @Adam Peter Conroy
    “I should really start beating my wife and referring to her as ‘bitch’.”

    Ignoratio elenchi

  210. Scott says:

    Prager’s disconnect is that he extols marriage while also promoting divorce. It doesn’t occur to him that only secure, intact marriages — marriages without the threatpoints of easy no-fault divorce, and the stripping men of their children and money — bring those societal benefits.

    Prager imagines you can have easy divorce, and still have children raised by strong fathers. He seems stupidly unaware of how mothers use the children as weapons against the father. Prager assumes a world of happy marriages and happy divorces, with the fathers still in the picture.

    I don’t know if I could have said this any better. It hits the target beautifully.

    I like the guy, and as I have pointed out upthread–I understand where he is coming from. But the party is over–the wheels have fallen off the bus and he just can’t figure out why. He cannot bring himself to acknowledge that all the special snowflakes are just as evil and sinful as everybody else.

    I know, because I was confronted with it myself. After a lifetime of saying exactly the same kinds of things Adam is saying here– I was blasted right between the eyes with it. That does seem to be one of the common denominators around here.

    Everyone moves along at their own pace, I guess.

  211. Feminist Hater says:

    Yeah, women hate that shit. I should really start beating my wife and referring to her as ‘bitch’. She’d love that much more that actually treating her like a lady.
    You people are not Christian in any sense of the word. Your views on women are what’s repulsive.

    You just need to point out where we say you should beat your wife.. otherwise you’re a liar.

  212. Feminist Hater says:

    @MarcusD I would note as well that you are ok with debating my manhood but won’t question some of the posters on this thread who refer to women as “bags of lard, bitches etc.”
    If that’s how you talk about women then it’s not my manhood or manliness I would be worried about.

    The bitch up top in the video is a tub of lard, she is a fat sow. Why don’t you like the truth. She acts like a man, gets treated like a man and then doesn’t like it. She got hit because she deserved it, man or woman, the way she acted meant she would have got hit. That’s a simply truth, you don’t like it, don’t care, live with it.

  213. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    ‘The bitch up top in the video is a tub of lard, she is a fat sow.’

    She is a human person with dignity. It seems that you are all here trying to justify to each other an unhealthy and incorrect view of women. Fair enough, that’s your right. Its my right to criticise your views. Its hard to justify them under any idea of Christianity. Even in past centuries, there was an understanding that women had dignity and were deserving of respect. The men on this site seem to be devoid of even that, choosing to view women as inferior.

  214. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    “Something brought you here. So to start with you need to first understand. A man does not have to hate women to know and openly speak of the basic nature of women. A blue pill chump that pedestalizes women does. That is why you projected all of that hate for women onto the men here.”

    What brought me here was curiosity about the views expressed here. And curiosity about the views of the young man posting on CAF. But its OK. Curiosity satisfied. I can see why a young man who can’t get any might be attracted to this site. Because it justifies and enables him to have a negative view of women. Society’s ills are their fault and none of them are good enough. Your views display more fear of women than mine do. I am happy to treat the women in my life as equal in dignity. I am unafraid of them suddenly turning around and betraying me.

    Its obvious that this fear is held by the “men” on this site.

  215. Linx says:

    @Adam Peter Conroy
    “She’d love that much more that actually treating her like a lady.”
    “She is a human person with dignity.”

    So then the question is this. Do you think she acted like a lady?

  216. Scott says:

    At about :25 seconds into this video, a lady appears…

  217. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    Do you think she acted like a lady?

    No. But the men on here are too interested in discussing how much of a fat, unladylike bitch she is in their eyes which actually reflects more on them than her.

  218. craig says:

    I’ll see your Catechism and raise you one Casti Connubii:

    “74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: – physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

    75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.”

  219. Opus says:

    Don’t agree with a word that Adam Peter Conroy says; in particular I take issue with his first sentence at 05.18 which reads ‘She is a human person with dignity’. Leaving a side that all humans are persons and vice versa (I don’t know of any other type) the one thing she abundantly lacks is dignity. Dignity is performative – we all lack dignity when reclining naked in the bath: Dignity is not like the Emperor’s New Clothes to be admired by sycophants.

    What I found remarkable in the video was the considerable restraint of the black dudes. If Dignity is like Restraint that is what they exuded

  220. craig says:

    Adam Peter Conroy says: “Even in past centuries, there was an understanding that women had dignity and were deserving of respect.”

    Absolutely, and that was a social contract that went two ways. You don’t get to repudiate your obligations under the contract and still insist the other party continue to abide by the contract.

    “I can see why a young man who can’t get any might be attracted to this site.”

    We’re out of arguments — bring on the shaming language!

    “I am unafraid of them suddenly turning around and betraying me.”

    Then you’re not paying attention to the world around you. Women are fallen creatures of God just as men are, except that society and law are now structured and incentivized to lead women to obey all their worst impulses and be rewarded for it.

  221. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    There’s nothing in that that gives men permission to insult women or treat them as inferior. Or call them bitches or sows.

  222. Linx says:

    @ Adam Peter Conroy
    “No. But the men on here are too interested in discussing how much of a fat, unladylike bitch she is in their eyes which actually reflects more on them than her.”
    “She is a human person with dignity.”

    Well in the video did she treat others with dignity?

  223. Scott says:

    Totally off topic, but this has thread is spiraling into making fun of guys who can’t get any, etc.

    https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/god-makes-a-fool-out-of-me-through-my-children/

    Carry on.

  224. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    Also in different parts of the same document the Pope talks of the mutual submission through Christ of the spouses.
    I’m not arguing that men and women are the same. And I agree that society would be better if mothers were encouraged to stay at home. But the attitude on this site is not reflective of any teaching of the Church.

  225. Feminist Hater says:

    First off, the Pope is a Marxist piece of trash. Secondly, you don’t get to come here and tell us what is or what isn’t Church teaching. I don’t either. There is truth and then there is not. You seem not to like naughty words. Fuck you, they are just words.

    Furthermore, if you don’t like what is said here, go away, no one cares anymore. The social contract has been broken, we can now do whatever the heck we what, it matters not what you think.

  226. Feminist Hater says:

    There’s nothing in that that gives men permission to insult women or treat them as inferior. Or call them bitches or sows.

    We can insult women just as much as they insult us. That bitch is once again a sow. Prove me wrong.

  227. Feminist Hater says:

    She is a human person with dignity. It seems that you are all here trying to justify to each other an unhealthy and incorrect view of women.

    Don’t make me laugh, as if you haven’t come on here and done exactly the same. Society has an unhealthy view of masculinity. Most men here have just had enough of you telling us what is a healthy view of women. I’ve formed my own view. That’s all there is to it.

    Shaming wont’ work. Calling us non-Christians won’t work. It matters not what you think, we will continue and I will continue to call women out on their insane behaviour, to call them fat pigs and to call them sluts. I care not one wit what you think. If the behaviour of a woman warrants her being called as such.

    I’m not going to be a simp and let women run roughshod over my life.

  228. Feminist Hater says:

    She is a human person with dignity.

    Nope, she is a fat tub of lard that acted like a bitch and got, deservedly, hit in the face for it.

  229. Feminist Hater says:

    Hey Adam, still waiting on you providing the quote that we said you must beat your wife. Come on, either admit it was hyperbole or provide the proof.

    Its hard to justify them under any idea of Christianity. Even in past centuries, there was an understanding that women had dignity and were deserving of respect. The men on this site seem to be devoid of even that, choosing to view women as inferior.

    Well shoot dude… why don’t you go and complain to the current feminised Church that has turned women into Godesses before you complain to us about viewing women as inferior. Your noble ‘Church’ has destroyed any reason for men to even go to Church, good going, sunshine.

    Do women have the same dignity as men or are you suggesting that they deserve more? If they want the level of respect given a decent human being, they had better act like that and think like that. Just get the Church and women to stop calling men pigs, deadbeats, losers, hooligans, useless, unnecessary, social misfits, drunkards, louts, manboys, turds, tards, stupid, filth, vermin, etc.. do that and you might have some standing to come tell us to stop doing the same.

  230. Anon says:

    Adam Peter Conroy said :

    It seems that you are all here trying to justify to each other an unhealthy and incorrect view of women.

    As decided by Adam, who has a laughably ignorant grasp of female psychology. Plus, Adam is a misogynist, by imposing behavior known to be repulsive to women, onto women.

    Adam, it appears you will never, in this lifetime, figure out why women dig jerks, and why serial killers get love letters from thousands of women, while ignoring you completely.

    Since you know so much, you are not doing your part, according to your own worldview. You need to spend more money on women. Any savings you have is money you have selfishly withheld from women. Man up and practice what you preach.

  231. Anon says:

    Adam Peter Conroy said :

    Its obvious that this fear is held by the “men” on this site.

    Given that we are the type of men that women find attractive, and you are not, the word you emphasized does not mean what you think it does.

    Anyway, my girlfriend needs a ride from the airport to my place. We have decided that you will be the one to transport her dutifully to my place (and then depart after thanking us for letting you chauffeur her). As payment, you will receive a verbal ‘Thank You’ from her.

    Quit talking and perform your role, so that she and I can be in physical proximity asap.

  232. Anon says:

    The real reason that Adam Peter Conroy is so keen on defending the fat, obnoxious, unfeminine, unproductive female in the video is because the women he has any social interaction with are exactly like her. In fact, such women represent the ceiling of his aspirations.

    Adam does not want to be reminded that he represents the very bottom of the male attractiveness hierarchy (specifically because he worships even the least attractive women, which is behavior that women find repulsive), hence his misdirected rage is against men who know better, rather than the mangina he sees in the mirror.

  233. Opus says:

    Given that two of the three CAF links no longer work and given further his appeal to Authority – The Pope’s – I am wondering whether I would be correct in assuming that Adam Peter Conroy is a paid up Roman Catholic? Has someone here upset CAF?

  234. craig says:

    Adam Peter Conroy says: “Also in different parts of the same document the Pope talks of the mutual submission through Christ of the spouses.”

    Not the document I quoted — that was Pius XI’s encyclical from 1930. ‘Mutual submission’ was unheard-of in Catholic teaching before John Paul II introduced this novelty to cater to modern sensibilities. All of Ephesians 5 and 6, really, is about Christians willingly submitting to one another in the others’ respective roles of authority: slaves to masters, employees to employers, children to parents, wives to husbands, children to parents. Ephesians 5:21 should be understood in this context as the close of the previous paragraph, not as the beginning of the instruction to husbands and wives. Ephesians 5 and 6 also instructs those in authority to show gentleness to their charges, and further instructs husbands to sacrifice for their wives, imaging marriage as the relationship between Christ and His Church. ‘Mutual submission’ attempts to make the latter an image of the former, when St. Paul says it is the other way around; it ends up making these whole two chapters logically incoherent, as it implies duties upon Christ to submit to the Church.

    The problem with ‘mutual submission’ is exactly the same problem as Francis’ incoherent expositions on the subject of mercy which imply that mercy is a necessary corrective to divine justice: they exhort man to improve upon God’s stated design, and by doing so they imply that man is capable of greater holiness than God.

  235. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    “The real reason that Adam Peter Conroy is so keen on defending the fat, obnoxious, unfeminine, unproductive female in the video is because the women he has any social interaction with are exactly like her. In fact, such women represent the ceiling of his aspirations.

    Adam does not want to be reminded that he represents the very bottom of the male attractiveness hierarchy (specifically because he worships even the least attractive women, which is behavior that women find repulsive), hence his misdirected rage is against men who know better, rather than the mangina he sees in the mirror.”

    LMFAO…Yeah OK. If that’s what you want to believe then grand. Its certainly easier than engaging in debate and defending your views.
    In fact I’m so happy to be able to learn how to be a real man from you guys. Is there a class you do?

  236. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    I find it interesting that you are all able to assume exactly what kind of man I am from a few comments.

  237. Linx says:

    @ Adam Peter Conroy
    “No. But the men on here are too interested in discussing how much of a fat, unladylike bitch she is in their eyes which actually reflects more on them than her.”

    Well if you are interested in discussing reflection then you won’t have a problem with your statements and my questions.

    “She is a human person with dignity.”

    Well in the video did she treat others with dignity?

  238. MarcusD says:

    @Adam Peter Conroy

    “@MarcusD…Yeah and the OP’s attitude and view of women for only what they can give him is devoid of any sense of compassion and christian spirit. It also probably won’t endear many women to him.”

    “Yeah”

    I’ll take your “yeah” as being in agreement.

    the OP’s attitude and view of women for only what they can give him is devoid of any sense of compassion and christian spirit.

    Your responses here only demonstrate further a lack of reading comprehension, a lack of cogent arguments, and a desire to draw conclusions that aren’t supported by evidence. You are claiming that the OP is “devoid of any sense of compassion and christian spirit” (at least with respect to women) because he insists on marrying a virgin. You are free to disagree with him, but to question his “christian spirit” is a bit too far. For him to have such a deal-breaker is an example of prudence. In particular, he is considering the seriousness of stability of marriage and family life for his future children.

    “It also probably won’t endear many women to him.”

    No, it won’t endear the wrong women to him. And that’s a good thing.

    Anyway, the type of behaviour that you exhibit is reminiscent of someone who seeks to defend a decision that they’ve made. What decision might that have been?

  239. Caspar Reyes says:

    Adam Peter,

    Out of the fulness of the heart, the mouth speaks. From a man’s words, one may know just what manner of man he is.

    Is there a class? Read and learn. Discussion on this forum on the same subject has taken place for years, and the comments are full of men’s empirical observations on the nature of women. I myself began reading here over three years ago because I allowed myself to realize that my own observations did not reconcile with what the pulpits were teaching me, which is the same as what you are trying to teach here.

  240. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    I’m not defending anything. It’s not so much his criteria as his attitude towards women in general.

  241. MarcusD says:

    @Adam Peter Conroy

    as his attitude towards women in general

    How about you give us your best three examples of his attitude.

  242. Anon says:

    Adam Conroy,

    I find it interesting that you are all able to assume exactly what kind of man I am from a few comments.

    We are experts on the topic of female psychology, with the results to prove it. We can identify the mangina (that most obsolete of creatures that you exemplify) based on 3-4 revealing comments, much like Jacques Cousteau can identify the species a whale belongs to just with a quick glance at its tail flukes.

    In short, everything you think you know about women, and what women are attracted to, is not just completely wrong, but almost a perfect parody of a bottom-ranking, low-value male.

  243. Anon says:

    This is quite timely.

    Milo Y was assaulted by a crazy female at DePaul University :

    https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/25/milo-yiannopoulos-assaulted-by-crazy-stu

    Perhaps Adam Cuckroy can side with the woman, since that is what he is about (rather than equal rights for all).

  244. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    So if you’re all experts of female psychology, then tell me…what philosophy is it that makes you so knowledgeable? I’m also curious to know what criteria are you using to aggign me the label if “low-value male”.

  245. JDG says:

    craig says:
    May 25, 2016 at 7:03 am
    Absolutely, and that was a social contract that went two ways. You don’t get to repudiate your obligations under the contract and still insist the other party continue to abide by the contract. …

    … Then you’re not paying attention to the world around you. Women are fallen creatures of God just as men are, except that society and law are now structured and incentivized to lead women to obey all their worst impulses and be rewarded for it.

    and

    craig says:
    May 25, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    All of Ephesians 5 and 6, really, is about Christians willingly submitting to one another in the others’ respective roles of authority: slaves to masters, employees to employers, children to parents, wives to husbands, children to parents. … ‘Mutual submission’ attempts to make the latter an image of the former, when St. Paul says it is the other way around; it ends up making these whole two chapters logically incoherent, as it implies duties upon Christ to submit to the Church.

    Well said.

  246. JDG says:

    Anyone who argues that a woman’s sexual past should not be a consideration in marriage is ignorant of biology, history and Christian biblical teachings.

    A man wanting a virgin bride should be applauded, not denounced.

  247. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    “We are experts on the topic of female psychology, with the results to prove it. We can identify the mangina (that most obsolete of creatures that you exemplify) based on 3-4 revealing comments, much like Jacques Cousteau can identify the species a whale belongs to just with a quick glance at its tail flukes.
    In short, everything you think you know about women, and what women are attracted to, is not just completely wrong, but almost a perfect parody of a bottom-ranking, low-value male.”

    Results? What results are those? I’m actually pretty sure at this point that most of the men on here are a bit like our friend from CAF @pragmatist91 – losers at the dating game and probably have had zero success with women in the past so therefore want to justify their bitter, sour-grapes attitude to them. Most of you have resorted to this website in order to engage in a masturbatory, ego-stroking exercise in which you are all “God’s gift” to the female population. You all claim to be experts at attracting women and assign yourselves the title “Alpha”. How come you’re all hiding behind anonymous usernames with no proof to back up your boasting?

  248. Anon says:

    Adam Cuckroy,

    I’m also curious to know what criteria are you using to aggign me the label if “low-value male”.

    Anyone who thinks appeasing women and groveling to them, despite the fact that it is well-established that women find this repulsive, is a low-value male. Your other comments reveal a life spent with very few if any women (let alone attractive women) being attracted to you.

    Most of the men here are married with children, or are single guys who are quite adept at having casual sex with young women (who then turn to you for subsidies once they lose their looks).

    How come you’re all hiding behind anonymous usernames with no proof to back up your boasting?

    We live in a culture when speaking visible truths about women can get you fired. What you do is the least courageous thing of all, which is to parrot the most over-approved message of all : women are flawless and men should grovel to them.

    BTW, since you are keen on fighting online ‘misogyny’, there is a blog devoted to this for people like you. It is called ‘We Hunted the Mammoth’.

    http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/

    You will find others to join you in the goal of criticizing blogs like this one. Go there to meet individuals like yourself.

  249. Anon says:

    I notice that Adam Cuckroy does not have a problem with a belligerent woman assaulting Milo Y at DePaul University.

    That is ok with his moral code.

  250. MarcusD says:

    @Adam Peter Conroy

    a bit like our friend from CAF @pragmatist91

    You mentioned earlier, of “pragmatist91”: “his attitude towards women in general”

    We’re still waiting for your best three examples of said attitude (or any three examples).

  251. MarcusD says:

    I notice that Adam Cuckroy does not have a problem with a belligerent woman assaulting Milo Y at DePaul University.

    That is ok with his moral code.

    I’m curious what his moral code actually is. At this point it has a Churchianity feel to it. (That or some kind of secular Puritanism.)

  252. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    “Anyone who thinks appeasing women and groveling to them, despite the fact that it is well-established that women find this repulsive, is a low-value male. Your other comments reveal a life spent with very few if any women (let alone attractive women) being attracted to you.”

    Well established in your head perhaps. There is a difference between grovelling and showing respect.
    I am quite amused by your attempts to draw conclusions about my life from my criticism of your viewpoint. I’m not going to get in to a game of “my wife is better than yours” though as I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that any of you are married.

    The bitterness that comes across toward women (and toward anyone who disagrees with your views) on this blog is indicative of some serious insecurities. I’d be more inclined to believe you were all happily married or successful men if you insulted less and reasoned more. As obtuse as your viewpoint is, if you really thought it was worth sharing you would be open to criticism and trying to convince other people of your viewpoint. But that doesn’t seem to be the case at all. As far as I can see this is nothing more than a club for rejected and bitter men who would rather put themselves on an imaginary pedestal than face reality and get a life.

  253. Scott says:

    though as I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that any of you are married.

    This is my website. I am a real person.

    https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/

    My wife and I are traditionalist, Orthodox Christians and do not use anonymous monikers. People around here think that is stupid, and I understand. But “no evidence” is a damned lie.

  254. Anon says:

    Adam Cuckroy,

    There is a difference between grovelling and showing respect.

    Yes, but you do the former. Plus, women are not attracted to men who ‘respect’ them. You are comically clueless about what attracts women and what doesn’t. The good news is that celibate cucks like you pay the bills that allow pickup artists to have sex with the church sluts. Your money keeps this arrangement financed. For that, we thank you.

    Remember that a serial killer gets thousands of love letter from women. You have gotten zero.

    You are actually arguing that many of the men here are not married, despite years of blog archives that say otherwise. Some, like Scott, have both the husband and wife posting here.

    At any rate, you are too cowardly to :
    a) Answer Marcus D’s questions about three examples.
    b) Admit that you are ok with Milo Y being assaulted by a woman.

    Go to ‘We Hunted the Mammoth’. People like you reside there.

  255. Scott says:

    Adam-

    Here is my advice. Stop. Read for about a month. No commenting.

    Its true there are many disgruntled, formerly married men here. Many of them are very angry about how what they believed was a lifetime commitment was burned in the fire of stoked by a system that rewards the worst of female urges. Do men have evil urges? Of course they do. But they are not being encouraged and rewarded to do those things at this point in history.

    The various ways in which these men have reacted and internalized the huge discrepancy in what they were taught and what they observe about the way the sexes interact comes out in sometimes excruciating-to-read ways. But you appear to want to just recite platitudes about “respect” and “equality.”

    Have you no interest in how this corner of the internet came to be? Why sites like this one gain thousands of new readers a day?

    Just listen. It’s not personal (except when you come here and make everyone out to basement dwelling losers.)

  256. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    @Scott

    Well, at last an actual reasoned reasoned response.
    Yes, I do have an interest in how and why sites like this exist. And I do see your point about men being blamed for a massive amount of the ills in society right now. And, in some quarters, being told that simply being a man makes them a woman hating, violent neanderthal.

    I don’t even have an issue with the submission of women in marriage thing. If a couple interpret the teaching of Paul in that manner and wish to live their marriage like that then fine.

    But there does seem to be a large amount of hate directed at me because I DARE to suggest that women, like men, are deserving of love and respect as human beings and as our sisters in Christ, from the Christian perspective.

  257. Boxer says:

    Dear Adam:

    The bitterness that comes across toward women (and toward anyone who disagrees with your views) on this blog is indicative of some serious insecurities.

    Spoken like a man who will one day (soon!) be summoned to the divorce courts. Well done good chap. Keep up the good fight and all. Let us know how your system works for you, OK?

    Regards,

    Boxer

  258. Anon says:

    Adam Cuckroy said :

    But there does seem to be a large amount of hate directed at me because I DARE to suggest that women, like men, are deserving of love and respect as human beings

    Again with the exaggerations and strawmen. I see he still is far too cowardly to address a) Marcus D’s request for three examples, and b) why he is ok with Milo Y being assaulted by a woman.

    Plus, he seems hell bent on the ‘respect for women’ thing, even though a) women get FAR too much respect relative to men already b) women are not attracted at all to men who extol how much they respect women.

    A man who has bedded many women can confirm that having sex with a lot of women does not increase respect for women. Quite the opposite in fact.

  259. donalgraeme says:

    @ Adam

    I don’t even have an issue with the submission of women in marriage thing. If a couple interpret the teaching of Paul in that manner and wish to live their marriage like that then fine.

    What you call “the submission of women in marriage thing” is OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING. It is core doctrine, if not dogma. It is not up to the individual interpretation of a married couple. At least, it isn’t if you are a member of the Catholic Church.

    Lest you think about refuting my statement with the Catechism, you should read the whole thing. There is a section which explicitly mentions that anything mentioned in previous versions of the catechisms which isn’t mentioned in this newest version is still official Church teaching unless otherwise indicated.

  260. Spike says:

    Adam Peter Conroy: If the woman in the video is “a human person with dignity”, then can you put your own interpretation of events of the content of the video up for analysis?
    ALL of the men here would love to treat women with dignity. The trouble is, feminism has turned them into monsters. Monsters who, with the aid of The State, destroy the lives of their boyfriends, husbands, male workmates, children, both born and unborn. You do know that there have been 1.7 billion abortions since Roe vs Wade made it legal, right? And that 1.7 billion isn’t due to rape, incest, or the fact that the condom just happened to break.
    Where is the dignity now?

  261. BillyS says:

    Adam,

    Coming in insulting others is not the way to get a reasoned discussion.

    Don’t step in the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat, as the saying goes.

    I am going on 28 years of marriage and while I definitely don’t have the anger of some here, I have lived through enough, including a close call in my own marriage, that showed the core truth of what Dalrock posts here. I have also had one daughter go off the rails pursuing the “bad boys” in spite of the fact she was raised better. I may go into stories about the others later, but it is not all peaches and light as you claim.

    Women clearly do not want respect as much as you claim or they would not flock after bad boys. Good men do not get the girl, even in the movies, these days.

    They want respect from the bad boys they chase, but can live without it rather than giving up the other aspects. Women also want to be in control, as per the curse on Eve, even when it is to their own hurt.

    Read many of the posts here and follow the conversations as Scott notes. Much merit in that and you might learn about more about the lay of the land before you jump in with your guns blazing.

  262. Linx says:

    @ Adam Peter Conroy.
    “But there does seem to be a large amount of hate directed at me because I DARE to suggest that women, like men, are deserving of love and respect as human beings and as our sisters in Christ, from the Christian perspective.”

    If this is true then why did you not also start defend the man in the video? You do know that he is a “human person with dignity” right?

    “She is a human person with dignity.”
    Well in the video did she treat others with dignity?

  263. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    Firstly, I did not defend the woman in the above video. I attacked your insulting remarks.
    Further, as a catholic, I don’t find it particularly praiseworthy to “bed multiple women”. Just another example of a negative attitude to women. It seems there’s a double standard present here. Its OK for men to sleep around but when its time to settle down you’ll only accept a virginal woman.
    In response to @donal, if he wants to debate biblical exegesis then I’ll be happy to do that on a different forum. Suffice to say, his interpretation of scripture does not take into account the development of theology in accordance with a fresh perspective on the sexuality and psychology of the human person. (John Paul II, Theology of the Body etc.)

  264. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    I’ll add that nowhere in Catholic teaching is there a provision for treating women like crap. The understanding of submission in marriage has changed over the centuries, as have other theological perspectives. The Church never, at any point promoted the view that women were morally inferior to men, or deceptive and conniving by nature. All you need to do is look at how many strong female Saints there have been throughout the history of the Church: Our Lady, St. Agnes, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Zelie Martin, St. Kateri to name but a few.

    In any case, the Christians who are on here should take another look at the life of Christ and ask themselves, Is this view of women in accordance with what Christ did and taught. I Imagine that if you look carefully and honestly, you’ll find it is not.

    And I understand that some people on here have maybe been burned by the women in their lives, that doesn’t actually mean that all women are bad or that we should be distrustful of women.

    @Marcus – The main example of his attitude to women is his purely utilitarian view of them for what they can give him. As one of the CAF posters said, marriage is about self-sacrifice from BOTH spouses. Not just the man or the woman.

  265. Looking Glass says:

    New commenter complains about having his assumptions figured out in a few comments.

    New commenter cements that he has no clue of history, reality nor much about the Lord and His Righteousness.

    We’ve seen this before, a lot. It doesn’t end well for the New Guy, since he will nearly always refuse to actually listen & own his failures.

  266. Linx says:

    @ Adam Peter Conroy
    “Firstly, I did not defend the woman in the above video. I attacked your insulting remarks.”
    What insulting remarks did I make Adam?

    “She is a human person with dignity.”
    Well in the video did she treat others with dignity?

  267. thedeti says:

    Adam Peter Conroy:

    “The understanding of submission in marriage has changed over the centuries, as have other theological perspectives.”

    Men and women are equal before God. They are not equal vis a vis each other. Wives are not equal to husbands. There is a hierarchy in marriage, set out in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3.

    God’s word doesn’t change, nor does God.

    I Sam. 15:29: “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

    Malachi 3:6: “For I am the Lord, I change not;”

    “The Church never, at any point promoted the view that women were morally inferior to men, or deceptive and conniving by nature.”

    You might want to rethink that.

    Prov. 9: 13-18: A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing. For she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city, To call passengers who go right on their ways: Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant. But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.

    Prov 7:10-27: And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.(She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.) So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, I have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows. Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee. I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves. For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey: He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life. Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.

    Lest you think the Old Testament has no meaning anymore, Someone greater than you or I addressed that directly.

    Matt. 5:17-18: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    Got a problem with any of this? Take it up with the Author, not with us.

  268. Opus says:

    One of the things things that has so often impressed me about this blog is the depth of scriptural learning exhibited so often by commenters, commenters who in the main, are, I think, of the Protestant persuasion rather than the Catholic; and then there are a few Orthodox. This Blog is not, as Dalrock has often been keen to stress, not sectarian and neither is it unwelcoming to those people whom I might broadly describe as Sceptic – and Mark is Jewish is he not? Catholics tend to rely more on their Catechism (and Adam Peter Conroy himself refers to the Catechism) and the guidance of the Princes of their Church. When, however, I read that there are new developments in Theology, as Conroy above informs us, my eyes roll and I am motivated to go all Richard Dawkins. P.Z.Myers amusing The Courtier’s Tale comes to mind – but what would I know.

    Bedding women may or may not be praiseworthy but it is not easy to do and thus requires some pro-active skill and does not happen without female consent or willingness; nor is this blog, I would have thought a blog for PUAs. It is nevertheless in male nature to attempt to attract women and women – even the most aggressive of Feminazis – want to be wooed, (them probably more than most) for even Conroy himself – unless he had an arranged marriage – must at some point have attempted to ingratiate himself and successfully with at least one female. How many times therefore unless he became lucky at his first and only attempt did he fail only to be rebuffed with greater or lesser ignominy by some woman at whom he had set his cap, which will presumably have caused him great introspection and unhappiness at what he had done so wrong to be so curtly rejected (and ejected). Perhaps he will say and in doing so explain his infallible pick-up technique – surely a technique that we will all want to learn and which has surely so far evaded even the forensic skills of Roissy. If, as I suspect, he has no such technique or profitable advice, may I suggest then, that before coming here to white-knight on behalf of a woman clearly engaged in ‘Let’s you and him fight over me’, who then inflamed the situation when it was calming down and then went on to act the part of the Damsel in Distress – how can Conroy not see that? – that he might do better to read through Dalrock’s various essays or if he has had enough of Dalrock, Rollo Tomassi’s essays at The Rational Male (to which Dalrock links).

    Can he also explain why the answers at C.A.F. seem to bear no relation to any accepted version – Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox of Christianity even though its contributors are avowedly Catholic and why the site iis tolerated by The Holy Roman Catholic Church; for I, and I suspect most reading here go to C.A.F. to be appalled by the blatant immorality, misandry and Hamster-driven rationalisations. I am sorry that someone seems to have blown our cover such that this pleasure is no longer available – oh please let us back, we promise to be really good and not upset anyone not even the awful Xantippe.

  269. craig says:

    Adam Peter Conroy says: “Further, as a catholic, I don’t find it particularly praiseworthy to “bed multiple women”.”

    Neither do many of us here. Like any blog, you get all kinds as commenters. For the most part the readers here are Christians working to figure out what adherence to the faith demands or does not demand, in light of the current societal realities.

    “Suffice to say, his interpretation of scripture does not take into account the development of theology in accordance with a fresh perspective on the sexuality and psychology of the human person. (John Paul II, Theology of the Body etc.)”

    Please note that the ‘Theology of the Body’ was not promulgated as magisterial teaching; it has some interesting points but should be understood only in the whole context of received Catholic doctrine and not as an improvement or corrective. ‘Hermeneutic of continuity’, and all that. While I respect JPII greatly, he had several notable blind spots. His post-Vatican II sympathy for fresh ideas and novelty per se in hopes of hitting on a successful ‘New Evangelism’ led him to be too accommodating of silver-tongued modernist theologians and wolves amid the hierarchy.

  270. Scott says:

    Opus’ comments should be collected and canonized.

  271. Boxer says:

    Neither do many of us here. Like any blog, you get all kinds as commenters. For the most part the readers here are Christians working to figure out what adherence to the faith demands or does not demand, in light of the current societal realities.

    I think it’s fair to be confused about most of the terms used here, (largely slang terms which have a particularly broad lexical range). The casual visitor to Dalrock will likely associate many of the things he sees with “game” sites, and it takes some time to acculturate to this group’s dominant ideal which uses terms that are interpreted in radically different ways elsewhere.

    Most of the guys on Dalrock aren’t interested in “bed multiple women,” they just want to improve their marriages, become better leaders at home and work, and live healthier lives. The fact that they have to look to sites like Heartiste and Roosh V Forum for advice is illustrative of just how little help there is in the mainstream, and they can’t be blamed for adapting “game” terms for their own purposes.

    Boxer

  272. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    @Craig. The Theology of the Body may not be Magisterial teaching. But as I pointed out, the magisterium never taught that women were inferior. TOB also is now a part of the deposit of faith. I would be quite a traditional Catholic but even I can see how certain perspectives are changed by time and theological development. Thomas Aquinas, arguably the greatest philosophical mind of Christian thought, vehemently disagreed with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Nevertheless it became dogma.

    @Opus I don’t actually have much experience of bring rejected by women. I studied for priesthood for a few years in my early 20’s and met my wife almost immediately after I left those studies.

    I’ll just say that I do apologise for some remarks I made earlier in the thread. I am genuinely interested in this topic and would be happy to discuss it further.

    [D: Welcome Adam.]

  273. Linx says:

    @ Adam Peter Conroy.
    “I’ll just say that I do apologise for some remarks I made earlier in the thread. I am genuinely interested in this topic and would be happy to discuss it further.”

    Glad to hear that . Now

    “Firstly, I did not defend the woman in the above video. I attacked your insulting remarks.”
    What insulting remarks did I make Adam?

    “She is a human person with dignity.”
    Well in the video did she treat others with dignity?

  274. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    @Linx she didn’t act with dignity. But that’s still no reason to insult her. Every person has a basic dignity as a person. She may be a “scruffy article” as my grandmother used to say… but I just think some comments were not particularly charitable.

  275. Linx says:

    @ Adam Peter Conroy.

    So you agree that she did not act like a lady. You agree that she did not show any dignity and you claim of her being a “scruffy article” shows that she lacks femininity. Would you advise a Christian man to court a woman that exhibits all of the above?

  276. Adam Peter Conroy says:

    No. But I was never arguing that they should.

  277. @Adam-Cuck: ‘Yeah, women hate that shit. I should really start beating my wife and referring to her as ‘bitch’. She’d love that much more that actually treating her like a lady.’

    LOL, so tell us about your sex life with your delicate hothouse, Adam. I am sure King David or Solomon would approve.

    Try to find anybody on this blog who advocates beating their wife. Tell me, does “treating her like a lady” include flowers and footrubs while you jerk off thinking about the sweaty folds of your extra-large leading lady?

    >Even in past centuries, there was an understanding that women had dignity and were deserving of respect.

    In NO century were women treated with “respect” simply because they had a vagina. Women still were required to be ladies if they wanted to be treated like a lady. This is SO typical. Cucks gonna cuck. They excuse everything women do and double down on their pledges of fealty never noticing the behavior of the woman who they worship (who recoils in disgust) or the distinctive sound of dry crinkling (that is the sound of her old withered vagina drying out) at the sight of these manboy-cucks.

    >>>I find it interesting that you are all able to assume exactly what kind of man I am from a few comments.

    We have seen hundreds, if not thousands of your type. Dalrock has thousands of viewers and commenters and has been blogging for several years. I am a moderator on Married Red Pill with 8,000 subscribers. Others in Dalrock’s group are deacons, psychotherapists, church elders, bloggers, pickup artists, and other long married professional men. We have collectively observed female behavior and we KNOW what turns them on (Hint: It is NOT being nice and it is NOT putting them on a pedestal to worship them like a golden calf).

    When you are older and wiser, and have suffered through years of a dead bedroom, years of nasty carping, complaining and testing, and been thrown out of your house, your church, and had all your friends and family turned against you while you continued to be ‘nice guy’ then you might understand. Although I doubt it. Cucks like you will go to the grave panty sniffing and holding the towel for the princess and wiping off her face tenderly while she grunts as Chad rails her in the A$$. You will probably really get off when they laugh about your small penis and how your woman is so happy that she can enjoy a REAL man. Who knows, maybe you will get lucky and your divine princess will let you lick up the cream pie after Chad leaves?

    >what philosophy is it that makes you so knowledgeable?

    The Red Pill. Based on the observations of Pickup Artists in the 1990’s about the actual behavior of women vs. what they try to tell you. Two years ago the Married Red Pill Reddit was started to explore how Red Pill knowledge plays out in marriage. Dalrock explores the encroachment of feminism into the church in his blog.

    >I’m also curious to know what criteria are you using to aggign me the label if “low-value male”.

    You shall know them by their fruits. The only fruit we have is your words but it is enough. Here are a few reasons we KNOW you are a sorry loser with women

    TLDR: You are the classical Blue Pill Mangina and they can be spotted from just a few comments.

    1. You display obvious panty sniffing, pedastalizing weak behavior concerning women.

    2. You jump to the defense of women you don’t know.

    3. You defend women only because they are in possession of that moist, holy, and sacred relic. To the mangina, the elusive moist vagina is a fixation and an obsessions that separates them from all reason because they don’t know how to get a vagina, much less a moist vagina.

    4. You immediately resort to “shaming” language when attacked.

    5. The shaming language you use is a feminine attack on normal male sexuality.

    From this we easily deduce that you are a mangina who is ipsa facto a total strike out with women. Probably you hide your failures with women behind your Catholic armor and think that waiting for God to give you a “good woman” who will take care of you and make all the pain go away is a good strategy. Please Jesus, my Best Friend Forever who would NEVER demand that I actually DO something (like actually learn how to relate to women), give me a good Woman. Don’t worry, when you are older, the right girl will find you! Just be yourself.

    You ignore that the Lord helps those that help themselves. You ignore that men are appointed to Headship over women and since you worship that most holy and elusive moist vagina, you cannot even imagine what Headship looks like. Your views are pagan and matriarchal and predate Christianity by thousands of years.

  278. Linx says:

    @Adam Peter Conroy.

    Nor did I say you did. So the issue is that the men here only articulated what you agree with in a way you don’t like. You did not try and empathise with them but you had no such qualms with the woman.

  279. Anon says:

    Adam C said :

    she didn’t act with dignity. But that’s still no reason to insult her.

    He sees no contradiction between the first half of his sentence, and the second.

    Remember that he has no problem with a belligerent woman assaulting Milo Y at DePaul University. He appears to be in tacit approval.

    Hence, it is safe to say that Adam’s overarching belief is that women should not be accountable for their behavior. Only men should. A man’s well-being is less important than a woman’s.

  280. Linx says:

    “Even in past centuries, there was an understanding that women had dignity and were deserving of respect.”

  281. Linx says:

    Strange still works on the play list

  282. Anon says:

    Adam’s fixation on the how ‘women deserve extraordinary respect’ is rather creepy. Women already get vastly more respect than men, without doing anything to earn that respect. Yet, Adam believes this should become even more lopsided.

    Plus, I should point out that he feels such a natural urge to whiteknight for the fat woman in the video because that is what his expectation of womanhood has been normalized to. In his experience, most women are indeed like that, so his attraction threshold has been Cloward-Pivened down. His entire range of experience is 1-3 on the 10-point scale. As feeriker will agree, this is evidence of an utter lack of genuine faith.

  283. Linx says:

    Try it one more time.

  284. >>>How come you’re all hiding behind anonymous usernames with no proof to back up your boasting?

    Delicious! More shaming. The answer is that most of us have respectable jobs and we don’t want our families harassed or our bosses contacted by cucks like you claiming we said something offensive. SJW’s cluster together like rats and target men to destroy. We choose not to give them a target.

    >>I’ll just say that I do apologise for some remarks I made earlier in the thread. I am genuinely interested in this topic and would be happy to discuss it further.

    I posted my rants before you posted this.

    Let me join Dalrock in welcoming you. Spend some time reading Dalrocks posts before you dive into the comments and take even more time figuring them out before you comment further. It may be to early to welcome you to the real world, but I always hold out hope. You can turn your marriage around and you can learn the actual Biblical principles from Dalrock. Good luck! I suspect you are going to need it because you are in for a rough ride.

  285. Adam Peter says:

    I can see that really there is no point engaging with anyone on here. I stand by my previous assessment. You are clearly nothing more than a bunch of mysogynists using pseudo scientific arguments to justify your attitudes then resorting to insults when questioned. I’ll take my chances with my current attitude. I’d rather be a mangina than an asshole.
    I guess I was right earlier. The majority of men on here are just bitter as fuck that they are unattractive, basement dwelling losers.

  286. Opus says:

    I should have guessed – Thorn Birds Game (Adam must know what that is even if everyone else has forgotten – ah Richard Chamberlain was even more desirable than as Dr Kildare). Women can never resist the unattainable and a Priest (or even a Trainee Priest) is cat-nip to women – and more so, far more so than even a married man. So, perhaps we do owe Adam a slight apology as we were certainly not expecting a Trainee Priest with his grasp of Theology and the Catholic liturgy, intent on making a vow of celibacy and thus most unlikely to be at any time in the dating market. The world may look very different to one in that position. God shines on the righteous.

  287. Linx says:

    So why did Adam Peter Conroy change to just Adam Peter?

    “The majority of men on here are just bitter as fuck that they are unattractive, basement dwelling losers.”
    Adam Peter Conroy clearly stated that treating people with dignity and respect is the way to interact with people you disagree with.

  288. Adam Peter says:

    Well…I posted my rant after @bluepill posted his rant but before his other comments.

    Anyway…all this talk of blue and red pills has given me an urge to watch the Matrix.

    @Linx – Because Adam Peter is easier to type when autofill is turned off.

  289. Adam Peter says:

    @Linx By your own logic the woman in the video is not worthy of respect or dignity because of how she acted. I was just applying your logic to the situation.

  290. MarcusD says:

    @Adam

    @Marcus – The main example of his attitude to women is his purely utilitarian view of them for what they can give him. As one of the CAF posters said, marriage is about self-sacrifice from BOTH spouses. Not just the man or the woman.

    Sorry, but you’re going to have to provide a quote (or at least a more in-depth recollection), because I don’t recall him writing anything that would fit that description. If you are like previous commenters, the so-called “purely utilitarian” views amount to having standards and deal-breakers for a spouse.

  291. Cuckroy McCuckface says:

    @Linx – Is this username more to your liking?

  292. Cuckroy McCuckface says:

    @Marcus – “Catholic woman with big breasts is better than a Catholic woman with a flat chest”

    The idea that he couldn’t deal with any trauma on his wife’s part in marriage. Any marriage could be full of trauma: Stillborn babies, post-partum depression. Your wife could be raped or develop depression or other mental illness.

  293. Linx says:

    Adam.
    By your logic it is okay to insult men [“bitter as fuck that they are unattractive, basement dwelling losers”] and then ridicule them for doing it to a woman [“There’s nothing in that that gives men permission to insult women or treat them as inferior. Or call them bitches or sows.”]
    you don’t even know.

    So it seems the difference is the same.

  294. Cuckroy McCuckface says:

    @Linx – “Curse my mother…expect a punch” (Wife in this case)

    Pope Francis

  295. Linx says:

    @ Adam
    And if they curse your dad?

  296. Cuckroy McCuckface says:

    @Linx Curse my dad or my brother – expect the same.

  297. BillyS says:

    Adam,

    Even I have seen some merit to using a pseudonym for my posting. It is a dangerous world out there and separating this from professional interaction is worthwhile, even if people ultimately connect the two.

    It is getting hard to ignore things posted on LinkedIn pushing the “You go girllllll!!!!” attitudes. Or the at least 40 year old effort to “get more women in engineering.” As if that will ever work.

    Also keep in mind that someone being called names doesn’t make those names accurate. It just means some freely throw around names. I would gladly be called an ahole if I am standing for the TRUTH and achieve that.

    I have taken my own heat here and will almost certainly take it again in the future. Are you man enough for that?

    Also keep in mind that women who act nasty need to get a nasty result or more women will act nasty. People continue to follow sin if they get away with it and especially if they are rewarded for it!

    =====

    For the record I was raised Roman Catholic, but I am a full Protestant now, though some would claim I am not that any more since I strongly lean Alt-Right.

  298. Linx says:

    @Adam
    Interesting. No turning the other cheek then. So your reply was “Curse my mother…expect a punch” (Wife in this case)”. Was the women in the video your wife?

  299. Cuckroy McCuckface says:

    @Linx No. Since you know my name you can google me and probably discover whatever you like about me. Including who my wife is.

  300. Linx says:

    @Adam.
    So then does that mean that you don’t have a problem with being a hypocrite or can you truly not see that your actions are no different.

  301. Cuckroy McCuckface says:

    “Also keep in mind that someone being called names doesn’t make those names accurate. It just means some freely throw around names. I would gladly be called an ahole if I am standing for the TRUTH and achieve that.

    I have taken my own heat here and will almost certainly take it again in the future. Are you man enough for that?

    Also keep in mind that women who act nasty need to get a nasty result or more women will act nasty. People continue to follow sin if they get away with it and especially if they are rewarded for it!”

    I sort of agree with your last paragraph.
    I’m going to just outline what I actually think for the sake of clarity:

    Yes, I would condemn the behaviour of the woman in the video. Maybe she deserved a slap.

    As for my view or women: I see women as equal in dignity to men. That doesn’t mean they are exactly the same. Both men and women deserve the same basic respect and dignity. I would agree that married women, if possible, have a greater duty to be in the home with children, that is part of Church teaching on the roles of men and women. On the other hand, I also agree with the idea of mutual submission within marriage. Basically, neither the man OR the woman should be a doormat or treated as inferior. This is evident is scripture as well. The description of Eve as “helpmate” in Genesis, implies a partnership, not a subortinate relationship. I don’t see how holding these views make me a cuckold. I guess different people will stick to what they perceive to be the truth. The position I am coming from is a Catholic position, which regards the Theology as a progression. This does not mean that the Church changes it’s core teaching, but that the understanding of some aspects, the human person in this case, is open to review and development.
    Since it was never a core teaching of the church that men should dominate women, it is not something that is set in stone.

  302. MarcusD says:

    @Adam

    “@Marcus – “Catholic woman with big breasts is better than a Catholic woman with a flat chest”

    Are you suggesting that he wrote something like that in the thread in question? Or, are you just interpreting? If not, at what point in the thread did he write that?

    “The idea that he couldn’t deal with any trauma on his wife’s part in marriage. Any marriage could be full of trauma: Stillborn babies, post-partum depression. Your wife could be raped or develop depression or other mental illness.”

    He didn’t say that. He said he wouldn’t want to marry someone who had experienced trauma (or a subset) prior to marriage. It’s definitely true that trauma (e.g. rape) has a negative effect on marriage, and does increase the risk of divorce and other problems. Would you object to a woman refusing to marry a man with PTSD (e.g. from combat)?

    It seems like it’s a completely foreign idea to you that people do take care in selecting their spouses. You may not believe that promiscuity or trauma have an effect on marital stability, but they do.

  303. donalgraeme says:

    I cannot speak for the non-Catholics here, but to those who are- Adam is clearly a heretic. And a troll. Ignore him and move on.

  304. Anon says:

    MarcusD said to Cuckroy/Adam :

    It seems like it’s a completely foreign idea to you that people do take care in selecting their spouses.

    Well, beggars can’t be choosers, so the notion of options becomes alien.

    Cuckroy said :

    As for my view or women: I see women as equal in dignity to men……………..Both men and women deserve the same basic respect and dignity.

    Agreed. But your problem is that you don’t see that women are already given vastly MORE of this than men. For women and men to receive the same respect and dignity, that would be a massive downgrade for women relative to the current status they enjoy.

    It is not equality/respect for women that you want. You want overwhelming female primacy.

    If you still think the average woman is ‘oppressed’ relative to the average man, you have no clue.

  305. MarcusD says:

    @Donal

    I cannot speak for the non-Catholics here, but to those who are- Adam is clearly a heretic. And a troll. Ignore him and move on.

    It seems he genuinely holds his views (that is, he’s not trolling). I’m guess that this is his account on CAF: http://forums.catholic.com/member.php?u=328329

    And yes, from what I’ve read, heresy would be the word I’d use.

  306. JDG says:

    If you still think the average woman is ‘oppressed’ relative to the average man, you have no clue.

    And here lies the crux of the matter. Too many self-professed Christians and too many conservatives believe the same feminist propaganda that academia was pushing twenty – thirty years ago.

    Women as a group have never in any point in history or in any part of the world had it worse than men as a group. Where ever women had it bad, men had it worse. People need to stop believing feminist lies.

    It bears repeating. Today’s conservative is last generations regressive (“liberal”) progressive.

    Conservatives need to STOP BELIEVING feminism. Conservatives need to STOP PROMOTING feminism. Conservatives need to STOP CONSERVING feminism.

  307. Looking Glass says:

    That’s literally the most honest Troll name to ever grace this place.

    /claps

  308. Adam says:

    @Donal It’s the Catholics on this site that I’d be worried about. If you think I’m a heretic then you need to study Catholic theology in more detail.

    In any case, I don’t really think there’s much for a Catholic man to learn from this site. Its essentially just a place for guys to bitch about how evil women are. Most people here are woman haters. Or at least woman objectifiers. Not only do you hate women, but you hate men who disagree with you. Probably best to leave you to it as opposed to getting involved in endless debate. Your views will never be adopted by the mainstream anyway, which is definitely a good thing.

  309. Adam says:

    @Anon I never said I believed that women should have more dignity than men. But it seems that you have no problem putting words in my mouth. I have continuously said that I can see some of your points about men in modern society. But you’d rather focus on mocking my views than any sort of reasoned discussion. My only conclusion is that you really have no interest in changing society at all but would rather air your grievances about women on this and blogs like this.

    I have to laugh at being called a heretic by someone who genuinely believes all the crap that is spouted in this site. It’s certainly no place for a Catholic to learn about manhood. I’ll take my cue from Christ and the Saints. Not a bunch of PUA worshipping, insecure, manboys.
    Have fun bitching. I’ll leave you to it.

  310. Opus says:

    So, farewell Adam. Christ and The Saints are hardly bad role-models if martyrdom is ones aim, but then most Saints tended to be celibate and many bore much in common with those who go MgTow – even Jesus spent forty Days and Nights in The Desert. I don’t know about Catholicism but what you espouse seems to be largely indistinguishable from the Marxist-Feminism with which your Church (and others) seems to have been infected. I am told that Jesus’ Mother is not Worshiped but Venerated, and as explained in the Gospels she is a role model for women (though I now realise how sexist that is). It does not however follow that all women live up to her standards of Chastity and Obedience. Perhaps that altercation between two hand-carts where the carters were keen to move on but where she then escalated the aggression and subsequently went in to victim-mode screaming at the top of her voice has been wisely edited out of The Gospels – or is it perchance in one of the Apocryphals?

  311. Feminist Hater says:

    I have to laugh at being called a heretic by someone who genuinely believes all the crap that is spouted in this site. It’s certainly no place for a Catholic to learn about manhood. I’ll take my cue from Christ and the Saints. Not a bunch of PUA worshipping, insecure, manboys.
    Have fun bitching. I’ll leave you to it.

    Please go you lying sack of shit. Let the door hit you on the way out.

  312. Looking Glass says:

    @Opus:

    As an American, there’s always a wonderful sensibility to the sarcasm that a Brit can produce. It’s always nice to have you around.

    @Adam-Failure:

    “@MarcusD…Yeah and the OP’s attitude and view of women for only what they can give him is devoid of any sense of compassion and christian spirit. It also probably won’t endear many women to him.”

    Your first post here.

    “Probably best to leave you to it as opposed to getting involved in endless debate. ”

    You were never here for a debate. Nor are you actually capable of one. You’re just a troll and a blind fool. Though your fluency in English is higher than the standard troll. So, you at least have that.

  313. Jim says:

    Please go you lying sack of shit. Let the door hit you on the way out.

    He’s just projecting his stupidity onto us. No big deal. We’ve seen these weak minded pussies before. Hell, they’re a dime a dozen anymore.

  314. Anon says:

    Always remember that to a mangina, he has an unshakeable belief that he represents the apex of male attractiveness. Whether it is a lonely incel like Manboobz (who laughs at Game despite…..what women does he get, exactly?), to a Cuck who is married to a fat woman no one else wanted yet spouts how he represents the apex of manhood.

    A mangina is truly convinced of his own supremacy, evidence be damned. Note that he still cannot approach women during the daytime to make smalltalk. But yet….

  315. MarcusD says:

    @Adam

    “I have to laugh at being called a heretic by someone who genuinely believes all the crap that is spouted in this site.”

    And you know this how?

  316. Anon says:

    The degree of Adam’s projection and delusion is exceptional even for a mangina.

    *He comes in insulting everyone, including Dalrock. Dalrock nonetheless welcomes him politely. This makes no effect on Adam, and still claims this blog is an echo chamber.
    *He cannot even begin to answer any questions posed directly to him, and certainly cannot demonstrate any knowledge of how female attraction works. He swiftly proves that he has never attracted a woman to him, yet insists he is an expert. He is very keen on whiteknighting for the fat woman in the OP video.
    *He says a Catholic cannot learn anything from this site, even though this is one of the *only*sites where a Christian can find information relevant to contemporary challenges he will face.
    *He has a very creepy demand that women be given even more respect than they currently get (which is already vastly more than a man gets).
    *He uses the word ‘insecure’ a lot. More projection.

    A better example of cuck/mangina projection, one will scarcely find.

  317. MarcusD says:

    @Jim

    He’s just projecting his stupidity onto us. No big deal. We’ve seen these weak minded pussies before. Hell, they’re a dime a dozen anymore.

    It’s incredible how alike they all are. I think Vox would use the label “Gamma”.

  318. Pingback: Man Baiting | Spawny's Space

  319. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    donalgraeme says [May 26, 2016 at 8:08 pm]:

    I cannot speak for the non-Catholics here, but to those who are — Adam is clearly a heretic. And a troll. Ignore him and move on.

    MarcusD replied [May 26, 2016 at 9:13 pm]:

    It seems he genuinely holds his views (that is, he’s not trolling). […]

    And yes, from what I’ve read, heresy would be the word I’d use.

    ==

    I hope my occasional “Pax Christi Vobiscum sign off should be clue enough, but in case it has not been: I am Roman Catholic also.

    (I am not really very good at it, which is why I keep practicing, ar-ar-ar …)

    MarcusD, I have to agree with donalgraeme that Adam.wossname.rename is a troll.

    Indeed, there’s an inconsistency to, and an evasiveness amongst, not just the content and intent of “his” various replies but also their very tone, which suggest to me that it’s a real possibility he isn’t one troll, but two or even three.

    Of course I could be wrong.

    But the unifying theme of the lot of them (“his” comments, I mean) seems to be that it’s all A Game, and The Game is to elicit outraged responses. He isn’t (they aren’t) here actually to debate, nor learn, nor even, I submit, to insult.

    Those are just buttons being pushed to see what (hopefully entertaining) response will be elicited.

    Even the “heresy”, I submit, is just more trolling, insofar as Heresy is consistent error, but this to me looks like it is all just throwing random manure at random. (Manginish manure, but *random* manginish manure.)

    So, looks like trolling to me. (And, in all honesty, some of it pretty funny.)

    um…

    Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: do not feed the trolls.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  320. MarcusD says:

    @Yac-Yac

    MarcusD, I have to agree with donalgraeme that Adam.wossname.rename is a troll.

    Well, his comments here, yes, I think it would be fair to call them trolling. That said, they match up ideologically (and in other ways) to his posting career over at CAF. It’s hard for me to say whether he’s intentionally or unintentionally come across as a troll on here.

    Part of me wonders if he, like others on CAF, are just parody accounts. Some of the idiosyncrasies and beliefs that are espoused seem like comical exaggerations of the archetypes discussed here and in similar places.

  321. Opus says:

    I assume and always have assumed that Adam was entirely serious. I have had a look around the internet and he appears to be what he here asserts, namely a former novitiate to the Priesthood, is somewhat pro-Tridentine and certainly opposed to the idea of allowing female entry into the Priesthood but despite what he says here as to being married it appear his nuptials are scheduled for next October. If that is correct we wish him luck .It is a pity that he has run-off, as at times I felt that he was capable of grasping what is in him eluded. He is indeed in Vox Day’s somewhat complicated and perhaps over complicated and over dogmatic system a Gamma or perhaps even Delta.

    Catholicism seems to be a mess: at the risk of Sectarianism it seems to me that the ability of Protestants to start from Scratch always unburdened by accretions of unwieldy Byzantine-like tradition gives Protestantism a clearer and sharper trajectory (even as it misses out on men of the calibre of Aquinas or Scotus). Even so, female worship of the sort in which Adam is engaging is surely not part of Christianity (or indeed any other sane system).

  322. Adam says:

    @Opus Nicely done Sherlock. I’m genuinely curious now. Just what is it you believe I’m missing out on?

  323. Scott says:

    It is not my place to tell our host how to run his blog, but it seems to me that when he recently changed the moderation rules, his intent to have less of this.

    It was not ban on women (as others have done) but on a type (or types) of argumentation.

    It reminds me of the rules I had at the old Courtship Pledge site. So often people would come there to point out how outside the mainstream courtship models are and how our kids were going to whatever they wanted anyway. But the specific, target audience was people who knew all that already but were willing to at least trying to be proponents of a higher level of parental involvement in mate selection. So I trashed a lot of comments. We were arguing the “how” and they were arguing the “should you?”

    Likewise, Adam seems to want to argue minutea about whether or not there has been a total failure of church leadership to resist fem-centered theology and we have all moved on to “what are we going to do about it?”

    THAT discussion is robust and worth coming here for. And for what its worth, I believe it was mentioned upthread. Protestants have an advantage in that they cah start a new “red-pill” denomination and elect Pastor Dalrock as their leader tomorrow if they wanted. I keep wondering why they don’t.

  324. Adam says:

    @opus
    @Scott

    What I’d actually really love to see is what is the philosophy, or set of ideas or changes that you want to see happening in society.
    It just seems that there are so many different views here. Some people are clearly quite aggressive about their views being challenged. Perhaps they have experiences that are informing a certain view…I don’t know. Some (@Scott @Opus for example) actually have made attempts to engage in a discussion.

    Anyway here are my questions:

    What is your actual view of women?
    What way do you think women should be treated by men?
    What are the changes you would make to society if you could?

  325. MarcusD says:

    @Adam

    If you’re going to stick around, you should probably provide the three best examples of pragmatist91’s “attitude towards women” that were asked. Again, quotes (and/or details) would be preferred, as opposed to your interpretations or editorializations.

  326. Scott says:

    Adam-

    The answer to your inquiry about consensus on what should be done is entirely wrapped up in my original advice to you, namely read for a month. Absorby–no commenty.

    You have stumbled into a part of the Internet that I found, quite by accident when I typed into a search engine in 2011, “why are men portrayed as idiots or assholes in all forms of entertainment?”

    It grows exponentially daily. And something that big will, as a point of fact have splinters upon splinters in its ideology. But make no mistake– this site is probably the hub (or one of the main ones) of where the most novel thoughts are being discussed about “what now?” (For Christians).

    But even within that sub group (Christian Manosphere) there is vigorous debate about what right looks like in the end.

    If I had to nail down some basic principles that most writers and commenters agree on here it would be this: “marriage” as existed for millennia has been effectively removed from public view and is many ways now outlawed.

    That is the starting point that probably 90% of commenters here (and sites like it) start from. This is why the conversation seems so strange to you. These men who post here are not ogres who drag their wives around by the hair and beat them nightly, and they deeply resent the implication, so they shun you.

    They earned these positions through some very painful introspection and experiences and find your cognitive dissonance about what the church and state pretend are “marriage” hilarious.

    MGTOW, “enjoy the decline,” “civilzationalists,” The Benedict Option are all very well discussed answers to your question.

    But you can’t get to that part of the discussion from where you are. You have to earn it.

  327. Scott says:

    A couple of typos in that last entry.

    I’m on my stupid phone.

  328. Anon says:

    Scott has put admirable effort (for the second time) to reach out to someone who will just reject everything out of hand.

    The reasons for this are discussed upthread.

  329. Adam says:

    “If I had to nail down some basic principles that most writers and commenters agree on here it would be this: “marriage” as existed for millennia has been effectively removed from public view and is many ways now outlawed.”

    I agree with this. Though I’m not sure I’d share your view in what’s to be done about it.

    As for cognitive dissonance… I don’t really care for the state definition of marriage as some places now allow “marriage” between two men. But the Catholic Church has a long and consistent teaching on marriage. That is where I’m coming from.

  330. American says:

    Honestly, I think it was his sister. Just saying.

  331. Adam says:

    @Marcus
    I already did. Unfortunately CAF deleted the entire thread so I can’t directly quote.

  332. MarcusD says:

    @Adam
    “I already did.”

    No, you did not. I will consider the (simple) request to be unfulfilled.

    Anyhow, in the future, you should avoid interpretations and editorializations of the words and writings of others.

  333. BillyS says:

    Claiming work in a deleted thread in another site is not a good attempt Adam.

  334. Anon says:

    Adam simply does not answer questions, nor does he declare what his beliefs are. For example, will Adam provide a straight answer about :

    1) Are divorce/child custody laws unfair to men, or fine the way they are (or unfair to women)?
    2) Are single mothers single because the man ran away, or by choice of the mother?
    3) Is there a rape epidemic on college campuses? Or is it a fake hysteria that is harming many falsely accused men who have been denied due process?

    If Adam can muster the courage to declare his views on these topics, we might get somewhere, but so far, he does nothing but dodge and obfuscate.

  335. JDG says:

    4) Why do women initiate 70+% of divorces?
    5) Does a woman’s sexual encounters before marriage have a negative impact on her marriage?

  336. JDG says:

    6) Are men and women attracted to and / or impressed by the same things?

  337. JDG says:

    One vote here for the return to biblical patriarchy where the default is male custody, male authority, women do not vote or run for office, and courts stay out of family affairs. I’d settle for what Washington, Jefferson, and Adams had in regards to how society and the family intertwined. If conservatives had really been conserving things for this nation, that would be the norm now. No?

  338. JDG says:

    7) Are feminists correct in saying women where oppressed in good ole Western patriarchy?

  339. feeriker says:

    If conservatives had really been conserving things for this nation, that would be the norm now. No?

    Correct.

    Putting it another way, if “conservatives” were about “conserving” the principles upon which this nation was founded, something they laughably still pay lip service to even as their deedsclearly undermine said principles at every turn, we wouldn’t be in nearly as horrendous a shape as a nation and society as we are in now.

    That “conservatives” differ not at all from the libtards they claim to oppose except in the rate and form in which they eagerly tear society’s fabric apart, explains why they are the intellectually and morally diseased laughingstock that they are, and whom almost no one takes seriously.

  340. Looking Glass says:

    The modern “conservatives” have always been a rear-guard action. Everything was infected by the Progressive Movement starting before the Civil War. The rot is long & very deep.

    Then again, all of the European cultures have the exact same issue, it just played out differently.

  341. Adam says:

    1) Are divorce/child custody laws unfair to men, or fine the way they are (or unfair to women)?
    Yes. They can be very unfair to men.

    2) Are single mothers single because the man ran away, or by choice of the mother?
    Well, since there are millions of single mothers, I’d say it’s probably a mixture of both.

    3) Is there a rape epidemic on college campuses? Or is it a fake hysteria that is harming many falsely accused men who have been denied due process?
    This isn’t an issue at all in my country. Though some of our universities have adopted “consent” lectures. In my view this is unnessacary. I would say that anti-christian sentiment in college campuses is more epidemic than rape.

    4) Why do women initiate 70+% of divorces?
    Because they’re unhappy with the marriage and unwilling to work at it I would imagine.

    5) Does a woman’s sexual encounters before marriage have a negative impact on her marriage?
    Yes

    6) Are men and women attracted to and / or impressed by the same things?
    No.

    7) Are feminists correct in saying women where oppressed in good ole Western patriarchy?
    Perhaps in some countries. I don’t think oppressed would be an accurate discription of how women were treated in the west, for the most part. I’d say the early women’s rights movement had valid points about the right to vote etc. But as that evolved into modern extreme feminism they came farther from “empowering” women by adopting positions like being pro-abortion etc.

  342. Linx says:

    @ Adam
    “I’d say the early women’s rights movement had valid points about the right to vote etc.”

    Firstly. Claiming a right by default places duties and responsibilities upon the one claiming it. By the points you answered you have shown that they have failed.

    Secondly. There is no such thing as a right to vote. It is a benefit.

    Thirdly. Study some history. Not all men had the right to vote either. Millions of young men died in WW1 who were never eligible to vote.

    Forthly. So then does that mean that you don’t have a problem with being a hypocrite or can you truly not see that your actions are no different.

  343. Linx says:

    @ Adam
    Here is some food for thought regarding the “right to vote”

  344. Adam says:

    Would I be correct in assuming that you see women as less intelligent than men?

  345. greyghost says:

    Adam
    There are other dynamics in play than raw intelligence. Female nature in general. Femaleness as it were does not have in its nature to be responsible for the general upkeep of civilization. No woman will ever speak of men as you speak of women. Look at the way women speak and react to the question of abortion or any suffering or death of any non women. Women in general lack male qualities of empathy,honor compassion etc. In fact many women will view those terms as sexist. Nothing to do with intelligence. Just the way it is. by the way it doesn’t require hatred and disrespect of women to note and speak of these things.
    Men in general concern themselves with concepts women don’t. Even a dull man has that over educated women (intelligent). It is all part of being male just as the lack of concern is part of being female. A woman primary concern is “self” and there is no getting around it. That is why the west decline into chaos and the destruction of the church is occurring. men still think even here that it is a matter of female accountability and agency. Civilization cannot and never will thrive requiring female agency. The discussions here involving marriage is the best example. Look at all of the twisting and reaching (futile) being done to make marriage viable. Foreign brides,christian women, young wives, game, etc. the list is endless. Just look at what the “Christian” church has become and the material they bring to Dalrock for his blog. But the bottom line is women by law are in charge and not one women gives a damn about anything but her happiness and it is all men’s fault. Think of all of the things you have discussed here and then check out this article from Return of Kings.
    http://www.returnofkings.com/86236/4-men-who-obtained-absolute-devotion-and-worship-from-women
    Notice the kind of man these men are. Not one is of value to any civilized society. Yet this is the reality we have in the female nature. It is normal for women but madness for a civil society to accept as normal.

  346. Adam says:

    @greyghost

    Why would anyone marry then if this was actually the nature of women?

  347. Anon says:

    Why would anyone marry then if this was actually the nature of women?

    Perhaps Adam should learn the difference between Marriage 1.0 and 2.0, how different the laws were then vs. now, how different husband-wife roles were (as taught by the Bible), and how there is now a divorce industry that profits by increasing the number of divorces, lobbying for laws that incentivize divorce.

  348. Adam says:

    @ Anon / greyghost

    I am aware of the problems in society affecting the institution of marriage. I really don’t share your view of the “nature” of women though. Where exactly does this view come from. Certainly not the scriptures anyway.

    Also when you talk about biblical marriage, are you referring to the model that allows a husband to have several wives?
    “Biblical” marriage could mean a lot of different things depending on the biblical era. it also allowed divorce under Mosaic Law in the Old Testament.

  349. greyghost says:

    Adam you are just trying to play dumb.

    The reason men still marry is that they choose to believe marriage is viable. The reality of the truth goes so against the beta male instinct that it just can’t be believed. The problem with marriage is not women but the laws women and nice guys voted in to make women happy. men just want to feel the romance of loving their woman. The truth makes it hard for them so they chose to not believe the nature of women.

    You look like you have the same issue Adam. You seem to want to believe something that isn’t true. Now women are fully capable of being all things nice if that is what is require to have men see them as all things nice. That is as good as it gets.

  350. Adam says:

    @greyghost So I’m guessing you are either never married or you were previously and then discovered this “truth”?

  351. Adam says:

    @greyghost Let’s say for arguments sake that I accept your assertions. The logical course would be to basically avoid marriage altogether. Because not even “biblical” marriage would be immune from the cunning of the wimmin.

  352. Adam says:

    I would also point out that the argument you are making about the nature of wimmin is contradictory. You are saying that men should reclaim their “power” in society and stop the rise of feminism etc. And reinstate this concept of “biblical” marriage. But at the same time you’re arguing that wimmin can’t be trusted and are incapable of thinking of anything but themselves. According to your logic, we should basically only have wimmin around to procreate and make dinner, because they can’t be trusted to make any decisions. In your worldview, marriage, and indeed any male-female relationship, is pointless.

    You are also putting both men and wimmin in the category of animals, because you seem to believe that wimmin can only act according to their “preset” nature, and men can only act within the Alpha, beta etc. stereotype that they possess.

  353. greyghost says:

    Adam
    I am Currently married with 3 children And you are correct the responsible thing is for a man is to avoid marriage. The reason is to avoid the government persecution women are not an issue they are who they are. It is a law thing not a woman thing.

    Also you are correct women cannot be trusted nothing women have shown in the last few decades says otherwise. just because women only think of themselves doesn’t mean a woman cannot be judged as a good woman and that judgment be accurate. If you haven’t noticed women also rely heavily on men’s favorable opinion of them. She will behave well with all of the markers of feminine virtue only if that is what is required. That is the key and why we have civilized society. The churches mistake is to rewrite scripture to please women rather than require women to follow scripture and then the church still calls women holy and spiritual.
    You are also correct that today’s women in general only value is a uterus to grow children. Empowered women will openly tell you that. (I need a man like a fish needs a bicycle) But technology that God was kind enough to allow man to discover may make that unnecessary. (But that is just another silly work around)
    The man female relationship is not pointless. It just need to be seen as it is. At this point in history men are task with restoring judgment on the behavior of women and it starts with family law. Any man that behaves productively in marriage must be absolutely respected and honored by civil society regardless of what she thinks and her wicked self interest will take over. Ironically that is manning up. may take a civil war to get there.

  354. greyghost says:

    Adam
    BTW MGTOW is the term you are looking for

  355. Adam says:

    @greyghost I’ll be honest…I don’t see where you get this from. This really just sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. The position is also contradictory. You say that no responsible man should choose marriage, but then you say that married (irresponsible) men should be respected in society. That makes no sense at all. There is also no way that I would ever believe your view of women because it simply has no basis in reality.

  356. Adam says:

    Out of curiosity…where did you even get this view?

  357. Novaseeker says:

    Adam —

    With all due respect, you have no business waltzing onto this site and demanding detailed explanations for things which have been discussed ad nauseam here by the site’s owner and blogger over the course of many years now, and which are also helpfully tracked in the various categories on the main header. As Scott suggested to you above, if you want to understand where the site is coming from, read — there’s quite a bit available here to read, and it isn’t hard to find. You’ll get a better understanding that way than trying to get it in the context of the rough-and-tumble back-and-forth of combox conversations, to be honest.

  358. Linx says:

    @ Adam
    “Would I be correct in assuming that you see women as less intelligent than men?”

    Would I be correct in assuming that you see the actions of women being beyond reproach?
    Also, don’t you have a problem with being a hypocrite or can you truly not see that your actions are no different?

  359. greyghost says:

    Looks like Adam is just a trouble maker playing dumb as a way to make trouble

  360. Adam says:

    I think the big problem with this blog and your views in general, is the same as with most philosophical/theological errors. There’s a tiny kernel of truth in there, but its mixed in with so much nonsense that its almost imperceptible. I doubt very much I’m going to agree with your views. So I’ll leave you to it. Good luck.

  361. Feminist Hater says:

    Heck Adam, you’ve said that already. Go! FFS.

  362. Feminist Hater says:

    Adam cannot reason that GreYghost is talking to different societal cases. What ought to be and what is.

    In the current social climate, marriage for men is painfully stupid and not reasonable. In a society where women are taught to control their hypergamy, honour their husbands and be faithful, a responsible man would marry, have children and raise them correctly, i.e. what ought to be but isn’t.

  363. Opus says:

    Adam @ 06.08am 27th May “Have fun bitching. I’ll leave you to it”.

    A dozen or so comments later.

    Adam @ 10.28am 31st May “So I’ll leave you to it”.

  364. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    Adam @ 06.08am 27th May “Have fun bitching. I’ll leave you to it”.

    A dozen or so comments later.

    Adam @ 10.28am 31st May “So I’ll leave you to it”.

    I believe the term is “hairflip”. We should start a pool on how many Adam does before he finally makes good on his threat to leave.

  365. Linx says:

    @Adam
    “I think the big problem with this blog and your views in general, is the same as with most philosophical/theological errors.”

    The problem with that statement is that your philosophical views are argued using logical fallacies and your theological arguments are more based on papal decisions and not the Bible.

  366. Looking Glass says:

    @Linx:

    I honestly think Adam doesn’t believe in anything, after reading his comments. That’s why it all seems so wishy-washy. He’s decided he doesn’t agree with us, yet then spends a while agreeing with us. Then, because he’s agreeing with us, he has to disagree, even if he can’t make the logical connection that his positions are now mutually exclusive.

    He’s got a fine career in politics waiting for him.

  367. greyghost says:

    Interesting guy and reaction from Adam. He came in with a set of ideas and had them challenged. now his foundation has been torn away.

  368. Adam says:

    The last thing I’m going to say is directed at any Catholics reading this blog. The views here are a million miles away from Church teaching. You’d be better off reading Aquinas, John Paul II and Benedict XVI than the crap being spouted here.
    Also. I only agreed with the points which were true regarding divorce etc.

  369. buckyinky says:

    The problem is Adam, I’m about as convinced you have a very deep understanding of Church teaching as you are that many happily-married men frequent this blog.

  370. Anon says:

    We should start a pool on how many Adam does before he finally makes good on his threat to leave.

    Indeed. This type of attention-whoring is very female behavior.

    With a woman, she is usually seeking gina-tingles.
    With a mangina, it is more to tell himself that ‘he is so much better than other men’ which needs to be reinforced daily given how much counter-evidence endlessly rises.

  371. Anon says:

    Looking Glass,

    He’s decided he doesn’t agree with us, yet then spends a while agreeing with us. Then, because he’s agreeing with us, he has to disagree, even if he can’t make the logical connection that his positions are now mutually exclusive.

    When humans lived in tribes, people who were entirely dependent on the tribe for survival (women, the elderly, and weak manginas) had no real opinions other than to side with the consensus.

    Strong people who could survive in the jungle on their own, had no such dependency, and the strongest could even start their own tribe. Only some people are brave enough to be contrarians and non-conformists, and, even with our modern society, this tendency often correlates with a person’s ability to survive in the wilderness on their own. This is also why elderly people become more conformist as they age – they go from being independent to needing the tribe.

    Adam has noticed that the star of feminist churchianity is past its zenith, so one part of his hindbrain as told him to switch allegiances. However, this new thought is not pervasive enough for him to take the risk of changing sides, so he is still wishy-washy about where to comply. Remember, he has to comply with whoever he thinks is winning. That is how people like him survived.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s