Patriarchists should shun The Spearhead

There are two positions from which to attack feminism.  First, there is patriarchy, the consensus of Christianity, Islam, and pagan antiquity.  The patriarchist opposes the liberal’s project of smashing social roles and norms in the name of individual autonomy.  Our roles and duties give meaning and dignity to our lives, none more so than our gender roles.  Masculinity finds its meaning in fatherhood, femininity in motherhood.  Through these ideals, men and women find written on their very flesh the calling to a distinct form of self-sacrificial love.  The “men’s rights movement” (MRM), on the other hand, accepts liberalism’s philosophical premises, but criticizes feminists for not weighing men’s wills and desires equitably with women’s.

MRM spokesmen have often criticized, and more often just rudely insulted, holders of the patriarchal position, most recently in The Spearhead’s attack on Laura Wood.  Ignoring the moment the rudeness of the post and comments (which should never be directed at any lady, much less one of the foremost champions of the patriarchal movement), notice what it was that provoked their ire.  It was Wood’s advice to a young man to preserve his honor before all other things, both because it’s most important, and because it’s the one thing wholly under his control.  That the MRM finds this—and any other summons to masculine virtue—offensive shows how deep is the separation between the MRM and us.  Also on The Spearhead, I see, have been articles trying to win over homosexual men to their movement, because of the common interests all men allegedly share.  Of course, anyone who cares about maintaining normative gender roles knows that we have no more fanatical enemy than the male sodomites, who work tirelessly to destroy the patriarchal family so that they can gratify their obscene lusts without social censure.  Anyone who wants sodomites on his side isn’t on our side.

I do realize that The Spearhead publishes work from some worthwhile authors, such as The Elusive Wapiti, a patriarchist for whom I have great respect, but they certainly do not set the dominant ideology of the site.

Why is The Spearhead’s ideology evil, and why should all right-thinking men shun it?  Let me count the ways:

Juvenile name-calling

MRM’s usual modus operandi is to dismiss criticism by hurling insults.  The most common insults they use to make good seem evil, and evil good:

mangina”:  any man who criticizes the MRM

shaming”: any appeal to morality or masculine virtues

white knight”: a chivalrous man, his commitment to protecting women and children being an object of ridicule

Consequentialism and Hostility toward Virtue

Being liberal at heart, the MRM sees men primarily as interest and desire-bearing subjects, rather than duty and virtue-bearing subjects.  Therefore, appeals to virtue and the importance of maintaining one’s integrity are dismissed (“shaming”) as sneaky ways of keeping men from pursuing their interests rationally.  As mentioned above, chivalry, the ethos of a protector, receives their particular scorn.  Most of them also despise chastity, going so far as to endorse the abominable practice of onanism.  (For a defense of the traditional view of the solitary vice, see here and here.)  Here they do a great disservice to men, helping them become enslaved to sexual sins from which it can be very difficult to free oneself.  Of those who discourage marriage, few ask men to embrace the life of celibacy that chastity demands of the unmarried.  Rather, they encourage men to seduce women using “game” and then discard them, that is when they don’t simply have recourse to their own hands.

The more sympathetic and intelligent MRM advocates, such as Novaseeker, will sometimes express respect for traditional morality, but think it impractical in today’s world.  Of course, the very idea that morality must be practical is a consequentialist error:  the moral law must be obeyed regardless of the consequences for our own happiness.  The “impracticality” argument is also short sighted, ignoring the fact that in the long run, we will all die, and our pleasures and aspirations will be dust, no matter what we do.  To gratify our desires has not been given us, but we can have honor.  This is not, as some Spearhead commenters suggested, exclusively a matter of Christian doctrine; no Stoic would have said differently.

An Unmanly Misogyny

Outrageous claims are often made by MRM advocates, that all women are stupid, or selfish, or sexually promiscuous.  They actually discourage men from trusting their wives, saying that any woman will discard her vows if a higher-status man becomes available.  This unwarranted libel of half the population is grossly unjust.  Consider also the monstrous impiety of these men who say such things about a class of people that includes their own mothers!  Most women are not adulterous, and most do assume the self-sacrificial role of motherhood.  The assumption of uniform female perfidy certainly does not match my experience.  A patriarchist can have no court with woman-bashing.  The role of mother, to which femininity is ordered, is noble and holy.  Furthermore, our calling as men is to protect the weaker sex, and this carping against those we are made to protect is unmanly and contemptible.

Hostility to Western Christianity

The MRM despises the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, saying that Western Christianity was corrupted and sissified during the Middle Ages by its focus on the Good Friday suffering of Jesus at the expense of his Easter victory, and through veneration of the Blessed Virgin.  Particular blame for “feminizing” Christianity is assigned to Bernard of Clairvaux—an odd accusation to  lay at the feet of the founder of the Knights Templar!  MRMers sometimes say that the Eastern Churches have avoided this fate, but I think Eastern Orthodox Christians would reject any compliment that implies that they ignore the Cross or fail to venerate the Theotokos.  That medieval Catholicism innovated in these regards does not withstand scrutiny.  Saint Paul it was who preached Christ crucified, and the first prayer of veneration to Holy Mary was spoken by the angel Gabriel.  Nor does Jesus’ suffering compromise his masculinity; rather it calls into question the MSM idea of masculinity as power and self-assertion.  Our Lord gives a more impressive image of manliness:  the hero who courageously exposes himself to danger and death to save his loved ones.

The Marxist Pseudoscience of “Game”

The MRM advocates using “game” to manipulate their way into women’s pants.  If it were only an aid to fornication, game would not be nearly as wicked as it actually is.  What their art of seduction actually does is to teach them to think of women as biological machines, without conscience or freedom, thus crippling a man’s ability to relate to women in a normal, personal way.  Game is, in my opinion, most dangerous when its advice is most innocent.  For example, for as long as I can remember, I’ve subjected my younger sisters to friendly teasing, joking, and pestering.  Now my wife is the main object of my mischief.  It amuses them.  We have a good time.  The normal human way to think about this is that I have what I think are amusing ideas, and so I share them with other people so that they can enjoy them too.  A student of game, though, would say that what’s really going on is that I’m carrying out a sort of psychological warfare against my wife, with the goal of destroying her self-confidence so that she’ll be open to my sexual domination.  So a warm, human thing is reduced to a cold, alien thing.  This is just one application of the unhealthy Marxist distinction between “base” and “superstructure”, according to which the normal world of human interaction is somehow unreal, a mask behind which work the “true”, impersonal forces.  They will say that their view is more “scientific” than mine, but how can this be, given that we agree about the empirical facts, and disagree only on their interpretation?  Game claims to be applying the legitimate science of evolutionary biology, but that’s as bogus as New Age charlatans who invoke the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

A strategic alliance?

Given that patriarchy and MRM are utterly incompatible, some nevertheless say that the two should form an alliance against their common enemy, the feminists.  This would be pointless, however, because MRM is a marginal, utterly powerless movement; strategically, we gain nothing from such an alliance.  In fact, they would have far more to gain.  Patriarchy holds the allegiance of one billion Muslims strong, millions of traditionalist Catholics, and others.  MRM is mostly the hobby of a few socially maladapted masturbators.

89 Responses

  1. We would gain by being associated with you?

    Are you Mormon?

    You are a dying breed of fossil. Far as it goes the progress the MRM has made (as can be seen in the Fathers and Families website) has been made without the help of you.

    Good riddance.

  2. Imagine a room, a basement somewhere. It is dark. The only source of light is a computer monitor. Illuminated in the bluish glare is a young man. The skin of his face is densely acned from lack of sunlight and his engorged belly is full of Mountain Dew. As he reads the words displayed on the monitor he furrows his brow, first in consternation, then in anger. Reacting in the only way he knows how, he finds the comment form and begins to type, pressing the keys so hard and with such fury that, were it possible, the letters would remain impressed in his pudgy fingers. The word he types is… “beta.”

    That word is being typed in reference to you, Bonald. Are you afraid yet? Because you should be. You have made a powerful enemy. I heard one time some guy said The Spearhead sucked and they found his Facebook page and called him all these names, it was terrible. People still talk about it.

  3. John–good one.

    Darn. “Beta”. How could I have forgotten about that one?

  4. Hello Clarence,

    Influencewise, we’re both pretty weak.

  5. bonald:

    I’ve been doing the MRM thing since 1996. We are much more powerful now then we were then, and we keep growing, even if only by men buying part of our message. Meanwhile, besides shaming language what do you bring to the table? Most traditional sects are not replenishing their numbers, and you’ve never been the slightest lick of help when it comes to repealing or fighting laws, so really we don’t need you and with your chumpy attitudes we don’t want you. “Bend over and take it or you are not a REAL man” is your message.

    Pathetic. The reality is that men in general don’t buy your religion and respond to incentives. If you won’t help change the incentives don’t cry that we don’t give a crap about anything else you have to say.

    P. S. I used to be a conservative protestant Christian, and I have a conservative Catholic aunt, so I think I know how you think.

  6. I will give John props for being funny. But he shouldn’t confuse The Spearhead with Roissy’s place. Not everyone at The Spearhead even likes “game”.

  7. To be fair to John, I also made this oversimplification.

  8. Hello Clarence,

    Thank you for your contributions to this conversation. Certainly, I can’t deny your point that men respond to incentives. I would deny that that’s all they respond to. Most people also feel the need to situate their lives in a bigger, ennobling context–the sort of thing that religion or stoic/deontological ethics provides. You yourself know conservative Christians, so it’s not a total dud in motivating people. It certainly isn’t doing as good a job of it as it used to, certainly, but I’m more interested in the question of truth than saleability. “What should motivate me?” rather than “What will motivate others?” In terms of influencing men through through incentives, I expect your carrot will continue to be less effective than the feminist state’s stick. It’s not a thing that cheers me.

  9. The Knights Templar did indeed disrupt European notions of gender, because the Knights Templar absorbed many Islamic ideas and fashions. The cult of “courtly love,” which led to the notions popularly called “chivalry,” have clear links to Islamic thought.

    As for the Spearhead, I don’t often have time to read it. I scan its bylines for new authors, and I follow the individual authors if they seem interesting.

  10. Hello zhai2nan2,

    That’s an interesting claim. But how were Islamic gender roles different from European ones in any subversive way?

  11. I should really get a better library, but the current pop scholarship tends to follow Idries Shah’s notions of the Templars.

    http://blog.templarhistory.com/2010/04/baphometthe-abufihamat-cipher-theory/

    Unfortunately I don’t have the Shah work that I wanted to cite close at hand, so I’ll have to summarize from memory.

    Chivalry’s cult of courtly love was (Shah claimed) a European version of Islam’s Sufi rhetoric of love. (Of course, Shah could relate darn near anything to Sufis. He is not universally considered to be a reliable authority.)

    The Sufi notion of love was subversive even within Islam, and (Shah claimed) was influential enough to subvert European social practices.

    Other than Shah, I haven’t studied the history of “courtly love,” so my sources are very thin. If you have competing authorities on the history of courtly love, I should check up on them – Shah might have been mistaken.

  12. ‘have clear links to Islamic ‘

    Hmm, that was a pretty extreme claim I made.

    I should amend that to say, “the links were clear to Idries Shah, and they were links to Sufism, not to mainstream Islam.”

  13. “Most traditional sects are not replenishing their numbers.”

    Like Traditionalist Catholics, Mormons, conservative Protestants, the Amish, Muslims, etc?

    Well, if they aren’t, then no one is. Although the number of kids to be seen at a typical Latin Mass would seem to indicate otherwise.

  14. John is speaking in jest about a powerful enemy, but it is important that we keep in mind that the force behind the MRM as Bonald has identified it in this well-spoken post is in fact a powerful enemy, and one that we have no hope of facing successfully if we do not identify it correctly. There is, unfortunately, a much more sinister enemy we are up against than an acne-faced anti-socialite, and we put ourselves in peril if we think it is only fallen men we need to take into consideration. We are up against forces which are not simply natural, and we must have help which is more than simply natural if we are to have any hope at victory.

    At the same time, let’s not hinder anyone among men who is now our enemy from joining us in fighting for virtue and goodness if he comes to see the light. I have heard that ridicule of the Evil One and his spiritual cohorts is very effective if we are backed up by faith and hope in God. Ridiculing men may be effective at times also, but all too often has the unintended effect of hindering a soul from repentence and joining the fight for what is good.

  15. Hello buckyinky,

    You’re right that we won’t convert many through ridicule; I expect it’s main social function is to reinforce the conviction of those already on our side. My main worry with this post is that decent patriarchists who have associated with The Spearhead will take offense, rather than realizing that they’re too good for such connections. The question of cooperating with lesser evils is a prudential one. I’m usually against it, but I respect those who think otherwise. I will try to be less personally insulting in future posts; it’s ideas, not people, that I want to attack.

  16. Bonald, thanks for the link and the mention. I am flattered.

    There is indeed some hostility to patriarchal values at The Spearhead. But I presume you’d agree that statement holds true pretty much everywhere in the culture. I do my best to present what my Boss prescribes as a superior vision of culture and a more socially constructive masculinity. And I don’t think it all falls on deaf ears. For despite how frequently the comments become a slaughterhouse–and it does a lot, for there’s a lot of anger out there–when I pipe up with a comment in support of a traditionalist or patriarchal value, my comments are strongly up-voted and only once in a while are they down-voted.

    Putting aside the obvious defect of using comment-grading as a barometer of quality or genuine agreement, I think I can fairly interpret this to mean that there are quite a few Spearhead readers who are open to a message a bit different than that pushed by the hedonistic PUA “let’s watch it burn down” camp.

  17. Agreed. It is the most traditinalist / Fundie sects that are growing.

    The ones who accommodated the World or cozied up to the State are the ones who are bleeding membership.

  18. […] on the one hand, and the men’s rights agenda, on the other.  Specifically, claims are being made here, for example, to the effect that because the men’s rights activist community (MRAs) is a diverse […]

  19. Comments across this part of the blogosphere have been deteriorating since I found it back in December 2009. One does what one can.

  20. ALL women should read The Spearhead. Women have absolutely no clue to what degree they are disrespected or why. Spearhead is one of the few resources that reveal it and explain it.

    I have all due respect for Christian men but honestly…most of you are way too damn nice. If women could see themselves in the eyes of men they might finally start to embrace their proper place in society.

  21. Hello paige,

    Maybe they should browse both The Spearhead and a patriarchal site; some but not all men disrespect them. I think quite highly of many women.

  22. I like to think as you do, but in truth every generation further erodes the traditional roles of both men and women.

    The Spearhead does an excellent job of exposing the lack of quality spreading among modern women, though it seems to overlook the fact that it is also spreading among men as well.

    I really don’t think that we can ever return to the way things were. Most men aren’t willing to stand up for their principals if it means they won’t be getting laid. Most women are at least partially spoiled entitlement princesses who expect all the benefits of equality, but also expect all the concessions traditionally given to women.

    Game, on the other hand, seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I see very little benefit from “getting in someone’s pants” if they’re not of sufficient quality to me both mate and mother as well as a sexual partner.

    I’m not much on the MGTOW bit, and I will continue to look for a quality woman to raise a family with, but with previous experiences I find it beneficial to be suspicious of women’s motivations. I never again want to be with someone who views me as a wallet with a penis.

  23. Where to begin? There are so many claims here that are trivial to disprove, it’s hard to know which one to pick first? Well, here in the first paragraph is a whopper:

    The “men’s rights movement” (MRM), on the other hand, accepts liberalism’s philosophical premises,

    This claim is false. There are participants in the Spearhead who are culturally and politically conservative, as well as liberals, as well as libertines. There are committed Christians, as well as pagans and atheists. Merely by reading the comments in a few threads, looking for key phrases, it would be trivial to prove the wide range of political positions held by Spearhead participants. No mind reading would be required, just looking at the plain text.

    Therefore, the facts contradict one of your initial premises. It is a fundamental axiom of logic that a flawed premise cannot lead to any meaningful conclusion. Therefore, by demolishing one of your premises, I have removed the foundation of the rest of your article. The article is essentially null and void.

    It is an article that is mostly emotion, sprinkled with logical fallacies. Why is it that so many “patriarchs” and “traditionalists” argue like schoolgirls, with emotion and fallacy, rather than like men?

  24. Oh, what the heck, I’ll cut down another weed.

    Ignoring the moment the rudeness of the post and comments (which should never be directed at any lady,

    Ah, yes, the traditionalist / patriarchist pedestalization of women. It appears that no man should ever be rude to any woman, under any circumstances, correct?

    Well, I personally believe that if there is a Hell, Andrea Yates should be put there. If I had the power, I would send her there myself.

    But you, Mr. Patriarch, no doubt find her to be deserving of praise and honor. So go ahead, make my day complete.

    Tell me why I should honor a woman like Andrea Yates. Take all the words that you need, but do tell us all why she should never be criticized, let alone punished, because after all she’s a woman, and thus inherently more moral than any man.

    You may use Google to refresh your memory if required.

  25. Regarding the question of the connection of the courtly love tradition to Islam, see the BBC documentary “When the Moors Ruled in Europe” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-768956312207897325#) from the 51min mark. The cultural transfer of the troubadour and courtly love ideal from Islamic Andalusia to Christian France is rather precisely marked in the historical record.

  26. bonald, I had to smile reading your post. I was one of Welmer’s small group of readers when he conceived the idea of the Spearhead, and I got swept up with “the Great Game debate” that occurred at that time. You might enjoy a couple essays I wrote at that time:

    Game is Evil, and Stupid

    and

    Why Men Support Feminism Through Game.html

    One correction I would offer you: I consider myself part of the Men’s Rights Movement, especially regarding the need for marriage and family law reform. The MRM is larger than those idiot Gamers.

  27. “we have no more fanatical enemy than the male sodomites, who work tirelessly to destroy the patriarchal family so that they can gratify their obscene lusts without social censure”

    And where better for them to operate than from the sanctimony of the church? I would not dare leave my sons in the charge of you homoerotic churchite power-mongers. Clean out your own house before criticizing ours, Hyprocrite.

    You accuse the MRM of “Juvenile name-calling : MRM’s usual modus operandi is to dismiss criticism by hurling insults. ” then your final sentence is the “MRM is mostly the hobby of a few socially maladapted masturbators.”

    You write a crappy essay, then dismiss all criticism by calling your opponents maladapted masturbators.

    You are more likely to find porn addicts in a church than an MRA blog.

    You guys are really creepy. You make my skin crawl.

  28. First off, if any of you gave an objective and honest reading to my article, I did not ATTACK TTH. I criticized her criticism of The Spearhead. She tried to draw a moral equivalence between the feminst propaganda like EPL, and The Spearhead.

    I merely pointed out that The Spearhead is a male place for open debate and discussion, and that we rarely all agree on ANYTHING. For her to brand the entire place as the sum total of the lowest commentary that you can find there is intellectually dishonest.

    Second of all, I made the specific point that in male spaces, profanity is often the norm. And since the Spearhead values free speech more than offending some people’s cultural sensibilities, profanity is a part of the dialogue.

    This is what TTH and her sycophants deem “evil.” As evil as a movie and book that basically tells women to divorce their husbands because they need to find fulfillment.

    That is a false moral equivalence, and I attacked her generalizations.

    But she cried foul, and the White Knights of Churchianity came out in full force to denounce the Spearhead and anyone and anything associated with it…to defend her from “bullies” as she called us.

    Go read my response to the hysterical housewife, and than read Novaseekers most recent post.

    The funny thing about this entire “debate” is that I agree with about 80% of what TTH espouses. I take her expressed ideas on their own merit, and do not focus on teh 20% I do disagree with and denounce her as “evil” because of that particular instance of disagreement.

  29. notice what it was that provoked their ire.

    This was also intellectually honest on her part to claim this is what generated my piece in the first place.

    This was my actual response to her statement:

    “Men have nothing to fear in marriage. It’s the DIVORCE we have to fear! We rightfully fear for the loss of our children, the garnishment of our wages, the loss of a lifetime we attempt to build for the benefit of our family!

    Honor has got nothing to do with it.”

    You know what’s even funnier than all of this?

    I’m a Patriarch. I’m married w/ children, and I am most certainly head of my household.

    But I do not nor will not bow and scrape to self-righteous women who deign to tell me about what it means to be a man or to question my honor.

  30. Ack – I meant “Intellectualy DIShonest on her part to claim this is what generated my piece in the first place. “

  31. Women confuse the chivalrous tendency of religious men as a sign of their personal merit. If more men were like the Spearhead men…completely refusing niceties towards women…then women would finally realize that they are not a special class and anyone nice to them isn’t doing so because they deserve it simply for being woman.

  32. Hello Mr. Galt,

    I’m pleased you’ve found my humble blog. An amusing sign of the distance between us is that we try but fail to insult each other. “White knighthood” is something I aspire to.

  33. “White knighthood” is something I aspire to

    Mary Winkler is widely defended by white knights. Tell us why you boys hold her in such high regard, please.

  34. I found this blog from the Spearhead. So you must admit that that blog has given you an audience. Credit where credit is due.

    If you have followed the Spearhead from its infancy, you will realize that the articles and many of its commenters are intelligent, hard-working men who are actively engaged in wresting this culture from Feminist/Socialist/Atheistic forces that have left a trail of social discord, gender animosity and class division in its wake.

    To attack/belittle MRAs while ignoring the enemy we are fighting is ill-advised.

  35. Who is Mary Winkler?

  36. Hello Mr. Lovekraft,

    Yes, I suppose I do owe most of today’s traffic at my site to them. I made an even bigger concession in my attack article, namely that some very good people write for The Spearhead. I do think that it has a dominant ideology though–and I think it severely flawed. I expect I’ll get back to insulting feminists tomorrow.

  37. bonald
    I do think that it has a dominant ideology though–and I think it severely flawed.

    I don’t see any evidence that you have either actually read articles at Spearhead, or that you think at all…

    I expect I’ll get back to insulting feminists tomorrow

    …and here is proof. First, you have a fit because Hawaiian Libertarian was rude to a woman, now you are going to go and insult women. So you do not even obey your own rules.

    Definitely White Knight material.Just like all the defenders of Mary Winkler…

  38. Hi bonald,

    Your criticism of the men’s rights movement is very interesting. I believe there is a point to be made here about the importance of words and their meanings. The word “patriarchy” on the other hand, suggests support for the authority of fathers, rather than the interests of men in general. It is the natural conservative position because the authority of fathers and the structure of the traditional family are inseparably linked. Thus it makes sense for a traditionalist woman like Laura Wood to support the patriarchy position.

    It also makes sense, in a strange sort of way, for a “men’s rights movement”, whose self-chosen label suggests that they have adopted the feminist understanding of male-female relations as a class conflict in which they purport to represent the male side, to attempt to enlist male homosexuals.

    Thus, despite liberal claims to the contrary, labels are important. Labels are words, and words have meanings, which is why we use them.

  39. Sir I will leave you a portion of the comment I left on the spearhead…”Jesus was the ultimate MRA. He never once bowed to political correctness or was shamed into silence. He was beaten, tortured, humiliated, lied about, mocked and murdered, and never wavered from telling the truth. Isn’t truth, essentially what MRAs are fighting for.”

    If “truth” is what Jesus stood for, and I am a christian then exposing the truth is a noble goal. Since the numbers tell us women initiate divorce over 70% of the time because they “feel” unfulfilled or some other nonsense axcuse. They can then and do backed by the state gain full child cutody. The husband literally has his children held hostage and is forced to pay extortion while maybe being allowed to “visit” or he goes to jail. Isn’t this the very definition of an evil that needs to be exposed and fought?

    This is just one of many issue’s MRAs fight against. Any true Christian would fight against an evil such as this.

  40. That’s an excellent find. Thanks very much. 1064 was a year to remember. And William the Ninth is remembered as “The First Troubadour.” I had not found those facts in the works of Shah. (Shah had some comments on the Arabic triliteral T-R-B root of “troubadour,” though.)

  41. Who is Mary Winkler?

    I’m assured she is a Godly woman, and a real lady. i’m surprised you have not heard of her. You might try this web site to find out:

    http://www.google.com

  42. I want to congratulate you on this article. I completely agree with your comments about the MRM.

    I do have a question for you as a Christian. Are you willing to ally with non-Christian supporters of patriarchy? You do realize that many other belief systems having been strongly patriarchal including Ancient Athenians, early Romans, and followers of Confucius. I am an atheist myself and I strongly support patriarchy. It would be nice if supporters of patriarchy had a common movement independent of religion, and clearly the MRM is not the right movement for us.

  43. [[Ignoring the moment the rudeness of the post and comments (which should never be directed at any lady]]

    Why shouldn’t they?
    YOu think women(er, I mean “ladies” ) are something special?

  44. Hello fschmidt,

    Thank you for your support. I would indeed like to make common cause with Muslims, pagans, and Confucians on this one.

  45. Very special.

  46. Hello Anonymous,

    Being a religious fanatic, I do try to think as little as possible, and I find that a few distinctions really do relieve me from a great deal of mental exertion. For example, insulting women I agree with = bad; insulting women I disagree with = good. Hardly brilliant, but not inconsistent.

  47. Hello NWOslave,

    Thank you from bringing up the issue of divorce law; it is a good example of the mixture of good and bad in the MRM. According to natural law, a father’s duty to support his children is irrevokable, and his authority over them can only be forfeited by extreme abuse. The state implicitly respects the duty to support, even in the case of divorce, while failing to respect his authority. On the other hand, so long as he’s forced to pay child support, a legal memory of his legitimate authority remains, because responsibility and authority are necessarily tied. I would not want this memory erased, because then the law would have come totally around to the view that children belong to their mothers and not their fathers. On the other hand, the MRM is right to condemn the frivolous divorces committed by many women, and the encouragement they receive from popular culture and the state.

  48. Then you find both Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates to be special, and above all possible criticism, is that correct?

  49. “I would indeed like to make common cause with Muslims, pagans, and Confucians on this one.”

    So, let’s do it then. How do we start?

  50. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Winkler

    Anonymous Reader, you’re making this unnecessarily unpleasant with your sarcasm.

  51. ‘Therefore, by demolishing one of your premises, I have removed the foundation of the rest of your article. The article is essentially null and void.’

    Your writing style resembles that of “Dan” who sometimes trolls EW’s blog.

    You’re determined to express contempt for the other party in the debate, and you tend to award yourself victory as if you believe yourself to be plaintiff, judge, and prosecuting attorney.

    I’m not surprised that you need to be anonymous. If you attached your name to your writings, you might actually have to walk your talk.

  52. I was amused to read you comments re the strong language used on The Spearhead, particularly when you yourself describe its readers as ‘socially maladjusted masturbators.’

    Well, speaking as a not at all socially maladjusted Spearhead reader I can tell you I lead a far happier socially varied life than most of my married friends, many of whom have their freedoms and activities curtailed by their wives. (And yes, the wives themselves are free to do as they please, so they certainly could be described as ‘wearing the trousers’).

    As far as your assertion that men should seek to be the protectors of women all I can say is I have no interest in women at all. To be blunt women bore me. I do not hate women, but I have no interest in them either. So if you want to continue to use personal attacks against people such as myself who eschew the ‘traditional’ then you are free to do so. I consider myself to be a free liberated man who leads his own life and feels no obligation to conform to old fasioned ‘gender roles’, and no attempt at ‘shaming language’ will change that.

  53. You are one good little slave. A good dag has the same attitude towards his master as you have yo women.

    Oh, wait.
    “Special”! I get it.
    Retards are special

  54. You lot deserve to be enslaved. Keep worshiping your women while I’ll make out with them when you’re out busy earning money for them.

  55. Wow, Bonald! You really made these “alpha” males gang up on you. But can the entire pack of wolves be made up alpha males?

  56. You misunderstand the MRM philosophy. Most of us reject Alpha-ism because ‘Alpha Males’ are only interested in getting to the top of the tree to impress women and to secure a mate. And the methods employed by many of these Alphas almost always involve screwing over on other men. Most of us see little to distinguish your typical ‘White Knight’ from many of the Alpha politicians who promote anti-male laws, or indeed Alpha ‘Patriarchists’ who want us all to believe ALL women are ‘special’.

  57. bonald:
    insulting women I agree with = bad; insulting women I disagree with = good.

    Then you must turn in your White Knight badge immediately. Because the true White Knight always defends all women, all the time, no matter what they may have said or done. Because to the White Knight, all women are superiour beings that must be protected at all costs.

  58. Anonymous Reader, you’re making this unnecessarily unpleasant with your sarcasm.

    I can lead a White Knight to knowledge, but I cannot make him think.

    But since you’ve piped up, and actually found a fact, suppose you tell me what a Godly woman Mary Winkler is, and why she deserves unconditional praise and support?

  59. i have contempt for arguments that consist of nothing more than emotional statements and logical fallacies. Here is a useful catalog of many popular shaming tactics (all of them logical fallacies) used by feminists.

    http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

    Please note the multiple examples of feminist shaming language on that list that can be easily found in this article by “patriarch” bonold, or in the screechings of Woods.

    Why do so many traditionalists argue just like schoolgirls and feminists? Could it be because fundamentally, deep down, there is no real difference between “traditionalists” and feminists in their contempt for men?

  60. Ladies are special, but not all women are ladies. Remember the phrase “ladies and gentlemen”? These days, there are very few ladies or gentlemen. Instead, most are sluts and cads. Some posters here may never have met a lady and so may not understand. Here are some pictures of ladies:

    http://www.coalpha.org/Women-before-Feminism-tp6053480p6053480.html

  61. Anonymous,

    Congratulations and thank you; you did catch me in a contradiction. In fact, courtesy restricts the verbal hostility that can be directed even at one’s female enemies. Your superior mental clarity is helping to make me a better White Knight.

    Also, note that one doesn’t have to think a being is ontologically superior to think that being warrants special treatment. I have special duties to my parents as their son, even though they’re no “better” than strangers. Similarly, I have special duties to women and children as a man.

  62. Great question. Superb question. I wish I had a worthy answer. Somehow, we’ve got to make contact with these other groups.

  63. Thanks for the link, zhai2nan2, and the summons to civility.

  64. Hello mananon,

    Thanks for filling me in on this subtlety of MRM terminology. I have only seen “alpha” used positively, as a quality to which one aspires, while all other Greek letters are terms of abuse.

  65. Congratulations and thank you; you did catch me in a contradiction. In fact, courtesy restricts the verbal hostility that can be directed even at one’s female enemies.

    Then once again I challenge you to defend Mary Winkler and/or Andrea Yates. Tell me why you find them to be Godly women, deserving of praise and special treatment.

    Be specific in your praise.

    Also, note that one doesn’t have to think a being is ontologically superior to think that being warrants special treatment.

    In theory, perhaps. In practice, I find no difference between the way feminists demand to be treated, and the way traditionalists demand women be treated. Both preach a form of female supremacy, although the slogans differ.

    I have special duties to my parents as their son, even though they’re no “better” than strangers.

    Cute example of bait and switch. Filial piety is vastly different from demanding that I bow down before every random female, no matter what she is doing, or has done. What you preach is a form of idol-worship. I don’t do that.

    Similarly, I have special duties to women and
    children as a man.

    Describe the special duties that you have towards Andrea Yates, in detail. Be specific.

  66. bonold
    Thanks for the link, zhai2nan2, and the summons to civility.

    Now that someone has provided information for you, can you “man up” and tell us all why this woman is deserving of praise and special treatment? What is it about her that you find attractive, and worthy?

    And thanks for the irony. It is very funny to see someone who uses feminist shaming terms freely to defame men he’s never met suddenly endorsing civility. Hypocritical, too, but that is simply to be expected.

  67. zhal2nan2
    I’m not surprised that you need to be anonymous. If you attached your name to your writings, you might actually have to walk your talk.

    Yes, I clearly should emulate bonald in that regard…

  68. Ladies are special, but not all women are ladies.

    You are at least 40 if not 50 years too late to make that observation with an credibility. White Knights have been attacking any man who dares to stand up to any woman, or worse yet criticize any woman, for years, decades, generations.

    Now tell me why you put Andrea Yates on a pedestal. Do it now, in detail.

  69. ‘Now tell me why you put Andrea Yates on a pedestal. Do it now, in detail.’

    That’s not just a leading question, it’s flat-out incorrect. Bonald is suggesting that women are special. Bonald has not agreed to put women on a pedastal.

    And your writing style sucks.

  70. Regarding my duties to a general woman
    1) The threshold under which I may use physical violence against her is much higher than for a man. You may hit a woman only if she’s about to shoot you. You may punch a man if he calls your mother a whore.
    2) A man should generally protect a woman from physical danger. If a task involves physical danger, male volunteers are to be sought first.
    3) One should show special discretion in discussing sexual matters in the presence of women, that the sense of awe and mystery between the sexes be maintained.
    4) Particular cultures give substance to chivalry and femininity by requiring each sex to defer to the other in various ways. In the West, it is customary for a gentleman to hold a door for a lady, to allow her to enter a room first, to close car doors for her, and so forth.

    I don’t see anything degrading in any of this.

  71. Anonymous Reader,

    You’re right. In my post, I made over-general personal statements about MRM advocates that exceeded the bounds of civility, and I apologize for that. My criticism of the ideology stands.

  72. ‘Superb question. I wish I had a worthy answer. Somehow, we’ve got to make contact with these other groups.’

    The issue of ecumenical cooperation is easier than it might look at first glance.

    The first step is to filter out the those whose objections are frivolous – a.k.a. trolls – while retaining objectors who sincerely feel that you must be corrected.

    I don’t have a great deal of experience with Muslims, but as for the East Asian religions (Confucian philosophy, Daoist practices, all varieties of Buddhism) I can speak at length.

    It comes down to functioning family structures. If families can reproduce and sustain themselves, then the systems of civilization can operate.

    In Taiwan, for example, some moralists see a high abortion rate as a severe problem. If abortion can be seen as a threat to patriarchy in *any* society, then distinctions like “I’m a Daoist, you’re a Christian,” will be less important.

  73. ‘Also, note that one doesn’t have to think a being is ontologically superior to think that being warrants special treatment. I have special duties to my parents as their son, even though they’re no “better” than strangers. Similarly, I have special duties to women and children as a man.’

    I suspect you’re moving toward some kind of “natural law” argument here. I’m not well versed in that philosophy, but I would like to be, so I’d like to see your thoughts on “duty” – possibly a separate post would be most convenient. I plan to write up some thoughts on Confucian notions of “duty” when I make the time.

  74. ‘i have contempt for arguments that consist of nothing more than emotional statements and logical fallacies.’

    From my perspective, “I have contempt” IS an emotional statement.

    While I am not convinced that you could identify a logical fallacy, there is a more pressing problem: according to Toulmin’s definitions of debate, you cannot debate.

    You don’t have to regard Toulmin as an authority, of course.

  75. Bonald, if you haven’t read it already, you would enjoy “The Garbage Generation.” See in particular this quoted bit:

    Here, from John Dollard’s Caste and Class in a Southern Town, is an example of such manipulative regulation “from the outside”– males persuading females that they are really regulating themselves:

    One of the rituals of the university dances is that of a fraternity of young blades entitled the Key-Ice. During the intermission the lights are turned out and these men march in carrying flaming brands. At the end of the procession four acolytes attend a long cake of ice. Wheeled in on a cart it glimmers in the torches’ flare. Then the leader, mounted on a table in the center of the big gymnasium, lifts a glass cup of water and begins a toast that runs: “To Woman, lovely woman of the Southland, as pure and as chaste as this sparkling water, as cold as this gleaming ice, we lift this cup, and we pledge our hearts and our lives to the protection of her virtue and chastity.”

    For “protection” Peggy Morgan would (correctly) read enforcing.

    Link:
    http://www.fisheaters.com/gb7.html

    I think the “duties toward women” are really “duties toward patriarchy.”

  76. Here, caught on video, is a very special woman. I’m sure that you will feel compelled to bow down to her right away, and condemn those evil men who were rude to her. Because her specialness is plain for all to see.

    You “patriarchs”, what would you do? Offer to help her? Praise her skills? Drop to your knees in open worship?

    Enjoy.

    http://www.fox17online.com/videobeta/53c8f33e-4d60-4ce3-97cc-68bdd04e05ee/News/CAUGHT-ON-VIDEO-Woman-Wrecks-Towing-Company-Attacks-Workers-And-TV-Reporter

  77. ‘Now tell me why you put Andrea Yates on a pedestal. Do it now, in detail.’

    zhai2nan2,
    That’s not just a leading question, it’s flat-out incorrect. Bonald is suggesting that women are special. Bonald has not agreed to put women on a pedastal.

    “Special” is merely another word for pedestalization. Putting women on a pedestal, above you, like an idol, is what traditionalists have done for years, for decades, for generations. It is what bonald and others demand, unconditionally.

    And your writing style sucks.

    This would be the civility that you were calling for earlier, yes? Or is it the erudition? I’m so confused by your profoundly large vocabulary…

  78. bonald
    Regarding my duties to a general woman
    1) The threshold under which I may use physical violence against her is much higher than for a man. You may hit a woman only if she’s about to shoot you. You may punch a man if he calls your mother a whore.

    Tut tut. You already established in your initial posting that no rudeness, of any sort, would ever be acceptable to a patriarch. Therefore striking a woman under any conditions is something you prohibit. Should a woman be about to shoot you, why, you just man up and take the bullet. That’s what you urge the rest of us to do; just man up and marry, no matter what the cost.

    Even if it’s some woman like Mary Winkler, or Andrea Yates…

    2) A man should generally protect a woman from physical danger. If a task involves physical danger, male volunteers are to be sought first.

    So when children are to be murdered, it is acceptable for women to do that, because there is no physical danger, right? On the other hand, when a husband is to be murdered, perhaps the woman should not do it herself, but should hire a man to do the job? I can see already your pity for poor Mary Winkler…

    3) One should show special discretion in discussing sexual matters in the presence of women, that the sense of awe and mystery between the sexes be maintained.

    Oh, yes, yes indeed. If a woman or a group of women standing on a balcony in New Orleans are freely displaying their breasts to drunken men, it would be ever so gauche to fail to be discreet in discussing it with them. Especially if they are doing it for a camera crew…

    4) Particular cultures give substance to chivalry and femininity by requiring each sex to defer to the other in various ways. In the West, it is customary for a gentleman to hold a door for a lady, to allow her to enter a room first, to close car doors for her, and so forth.

    And, of course, when she chooses to shoot her husband in the back with a shotgun in bed, he naturally should defer to her and die. Right?

    I don’t see anything degrading in any of this.

    But you have not told me of your special duties to Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates. Please do so, in detail. I’m sure by now you know who the ladies are, and what their deeds consist of.

    Tell me how I am supposed to treat them, according to the standards of your notion of “patriarchy”. Because they are ladies, and you’ve made it clear they deserve special treatment, no matter what.

  79. ‘i have contempt for arguments that consist of nothing more than emotional statements and logical fallacies.’

    zhai2nan2
    From my perspective, “I have contempt” IS an emotional statement.

    That could be so. What of it?

    While I am not convinced that you could identify a logical fallacy,

    Given that I already have done so, you appear to either not be reading with any care, or to lack knowledge of logical fallacies.

    <i< there is a more pressing problem: according to Toulmin’s definitions of debate, you cannot debate.
    You don’t have to regard Toulmin as an authority, of course.

    Well, that’s an improvement over feminist shaming language, or cursing at me. But not much of one…

  80. “Now tell me why you put Andrea Yates on a pedestal.”

    Those supporting patriarchy may disagree on the details. In my case, I would put ladies on a pedestal, and I would put sluts in the sewer. Andrea Yates and most other modern women belong in the sewer.

  81. “Somehow, we’ve got to make contact with these other groups.”

    It seems like a reasonable first step would be to start a forum for supporters of patriarchy. The MRM has numerous forums, but there is nothing for “patriarchists”.

  82. bonald
    You’re right. In my post, I made over-general personal statements about MRM advocates that exceeded the bounds of civility, and I apologize for that.

    Well, that is a surprise. I do not recall ever seeing a traditionalist admit error ever before, or apologize for that matter. However, in my “evil” opinion (pace Laura Woods, I disagree, therefore I am by your definition “evil”) you should post this apology to the Spearhead, where your targets are more likely to see it.

    My criticism of the ideology stands.

    There is no ideology to criticize. The closest thing to an ideology that can be seen is perhaps “Too many wrongs have been done to men. This must stop. There should be changes made to laws”. Beyond that are a myriad of differing opinions, as others have attempted unsuccessfully to explain.

    Do you find the notion that wrongs have been done to men to be unacceptable, wrongheaded, “evil”? Or does the idea that these wrongs should be stopped perturb you? Or is the notion of changing laws objectionable?

    There is no “men’s rights movement”. There is a collection of men and some women who are righteously angry about injustices, harms done, severe wrongs committed. They do not agree on much of anything.

    Why you wish to attack them, in the style of feminists, is a mystery to me, but you are far from the first or the last to do so.

  83. “Now tell me why you put Andrea Yates on a pedestal.”

    Those supporting patriarchy may disagree on the details. In my case, I would put ladies on a pedestal, and I would put sluts in the sewer. Andrea Yates and most other modern women belong in the sewer.

    Tut, tut. You are being rude discussing women. That won’t do on this site, where all women are deserving of special treatment, no matter what, because they are women. So I must ask you to display the proper respect, reverence, and worshipful state that is due here to any woman, no matter what.

    Now, I’ve already made my opinion of Andrea Yates clear. But I’m “evil”, because I disagree with both traditionalists and feminists. So feel free to disregard my informed opinion.

  84. Hello zhai2nan2,

    Natural law is a big subject, and I’m hardly the best expert. Some of my essays touch on the matter in various ways. For example, “In Defense of Tradition” is pretty short, and it explores the relationship between natural law and tradition. My “In Defense of Patriarchy” is, I would like to think, an excercise in natural law thinking applied to family relations. Be warned that I deviate a bit from the mainstream natural law tradition–more in style than substance–by emphasizing “natural meanings” more than “natural ends”.

  85. Anonymous Reader,

    I am astounded by your endurance. I do believe that you are the most dedicated reader I’ve ever had.

  86. […] came in from the wilderness to post a characteristically rational, temperate post on the recent dust-up between traditionalist Christians and men who are struggling with state-sponsored dispossess…. Given my own circumstances and experiences, I certainly wouldn’t have been so charitable. […]

  87. First thing,I am an MRA and I love it. I also think the Spearhead is great and I think you are a bunch of mangina assclowns.

    Let’s see what you traditionalists have given us:

    a high suicide rate among men. One church even had 17 male suicides and none of the parisioners cared. Sort of like you clowns.

    putting women on a pedestal and never critisizing them no matter what evil they commit.

    male only draft and male only selective service.

    pro-female affirmative action programs at the expense of men.

    the crusades

    the inquistions

    the Salem witchhunts

    Oh,one more thing:

    FUCK YOU AND YOUR RELIGION.

  88. “mangina assclowns”. I love that!

  89. […] Bonald, Patriarchists should shun The Spearhead […]

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

%d bloggers like this: