Cynicism: the starry-eyed idealism of the nihilist

December 27, 2012 § 153 Comments

Some of the commenters on this thread (either here or in trackback) might consider the extent to which their reactions confirm Lydia’s view. By forming what amounts to a cult around a somewhat useful social analysis akin to the Meyers-Briggs test they convince themselves that they know strangers on the Internet well enough to do personal over-the-wire psychoanalysis.

I generally consider over-the-wire psychoanalysis of total strangers to be a reductio ad absurdam of the point of view expressed.

I think there are some valuable facts and insights in the manosphere. But by demonstrating the kinds of behaviors one expects from people in the grip of an ideology, manosphere commenters unwittingly show that the manosphere fosters precisely what Lydia contends it fosters in at least some men, e.g.:

A habitually cynical outlook. A continual view of sexual life as a matter of full-fledged conflict between the sexes.

and

But there are always occupational hazards in continually being immersed in certain kinds of evils. In this case, my conclusion is that the occupational hazard of being immersed (maybe perforce, because of one’s job, for example) in the situations in which women have ruined men’s lives is a particular level and type of jadedness and a damaging of that ability to see a woman as a gift.

… just as two examples.

I hate to break it to the androsphere: but realism lies somewhere in between starry-eyed idealism and black-eyed cynicism. Cynicism is just another way of refusing to come to grips with all of reality: the starry-eyed idealism of the nihilist.

And being a starry-eyed idealist about women is foolish.

[Update 1/1/2013: It has been pointed out to me that this post has a user interface design flaw which may have affected the impression it made on some people. The words "in trackback" link to two different comment threads: the first at The Woman and the Dragon, the second at Dalrock. Depending on what browser one is using and what threads one has previously visited this may not be obvious.]

§ 153 Responses to Cynicism: the starry-eyed idealism of the nihilist

  • sunshinemary says:

    I’m not sure anyone was trying to psychoanalyze Mrs. McGrew, but rather pointing out the dynamic that was in play on the thread debate between her and Dalrock.

    I agree that realism lies between idealism and cynicism. However, if men are not even allowed to notice or comment upon rampant sluttery and frivorce by women, including those in the church, then how can they ever develop this realistic outlook? They are stuck in idealism, which is a dangerous fantasy land.

  • Zippy says:

    There are all sorts of people claiming to understand her personal motives, etc. It is laughably ridiculous. Open your eyes.

  • Aegis says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the dispute was originally about whether or not Dalrock was embittered, cynical, and unable “to see a woman as a gift” ?

    I have seen plenty of cynicism in the comments section of Dalrock’s blog, but that the man himself can be so described- of that I am unconvinced.

  • [...] This includes both the Christian feminists and the androsphere, where blaming men for liking younger women and women for liking more powerful men is rife, and there is much finger pointing. As the Zipster says. [...]

  • [...] Several other bloggers have written their own thoughts on the issue (Vox Day, Frost, Zippy Catholic, Sunshine Mary, and Ballista74).  See also Rollo’s recent post on the feminine imperative [...]

  • tz2026 says:

    VD intersects ZC. Something just froze over.

    “Game” is what you are left with when you reduce “men” [humans of both genders] to primates capable of reason. This is just one of the aspects of “Men without Chests” Lewis speaks of.

    That said, it is best to go with nature when possible, so it is better for a husband to know what his wife finds attractive and vice-versa. Men who do not show headship, or women who let themselves go to seed are leading their spouses into temptation.

    Nor is “realism” an averaging of idealism and cynicism. Or perhaps it is, but then it ought to be rejected. We are called to be the ideal. And when we fail go to confession. “Be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect”. Or simply examine your conscience against the sermon on the mount. Although the reality is we are fallen in a fallen world, the call is not for complacency or in any way to accept it but to transcend it. Jesus has come. He sacrificed himself. He is risen, Alleluia! And he will return!

    Game is part of the fallen nature. But we aren’t bound by it. Yet faith is the only escape. In that “realism” ought to be to pull people out of their cynicism – even if they enjoy and are successful at “game”, it is still nihilistic, to the ideal of sacramental marriage.

    Perhaps that ugly bitch is a good mother, but would not a comely if not beautiful, supportive wife be better? Perhaps that wimp provides abundant income to the household, but would not an assertive, strong, manly man (converse to a girly man) be better?

  • Zippy says:

    tz:
    I suppose “in between” wasn’t the best phrasing. I was just trying to make the point that black-eyed cynicism is also an embrace of unreality.

    If “idealism” as I’ve used it here represents the Godly ideal then I suppose cynicism must represent someone else’s ideal.

  • Mike T says:

    Lydia may be right, but that doesn’t change the fact that her ability to engage in rational discourse falls apart whenever MRM issues or Game are brought up. I came very close to acusing her of channeling PZ Meyers the last time she wrote on civil marriage and attacked all of my comments without going after the actual arguments (ex. she has never rebutted my argument that no fault divorce has all but turned civil marriage into a civil union with almost no overlap with the cultural institution of marriage we once honored).

  • Dystopia Max says:

    Funny Lydia McGrew should get into this.

    Laura Wood of The Thinking Housewife seems to trip over Game in almost exactly the same way that Udolpho of udolpho.com does-a member of an older fortyish childless couple, well established in the world, long experienced in marriage, long a beneficiary of conservative practice, attacks MRAs as bitter losers and faithless reductionists (the atheist, of course, prefers to call them BEEP BOOP nerds. He was also once a Catholic.)

    All true as far as they go, but if they’re not providing any guidance to young men on their current situation in the dating/marriage market, why should those men listen to them, exactly?

    (Alse YOU CAN’T FIGURE ME OUT WITH YOUR PALTRY INTERNET KNOWLEDGE as a defense doesn’t work when you’ve logged your thoughts and experiences on the Internet for years. I know Lydia McGrew is old and Catholic, is she also married and childless?)

    Are you not merely blaming men for not being institutionalized? For not knowing things that you yourself have forgotten you were taught? For being of middling intelligence, drive, and charm, and picking up whatever works in an economy and culture that’s unremittingly hostile to them?

    When cynicism gets you closer to an experience that comes closest to transcendence for the non-religious, bet on cynicism. Lord knows idealism’s been having it’s way in our body politic for a very long time.

  • Zippy says:

    Dystopia Max:
    I know Lydia McGrew is old and Catholic, is she also married and childless?

    Mr. Google is your friend. The top result for “Lydia McGrew” is here. Under “About” you can learn her Christian denomination (not Catholic btw), marital status, etc.

    Are you not merely blaming men for not being institutionalized? For not knowing things that you yourself have forgotten you were taught? For being of middling intelligence, drive, and charm, and picking up whatever works in an economy and culture that’s unremittingly hostile to them?

    What are you talking about? Perhaps if you quoted from the person you are addressing, and focused your questions on what that person actually said, it might be more productive.

    That is one of the things I find pervasively annoying in much manosphere discussion; though in fairness I find it annoying about a great deal of Internet discussion in general. People seem to have templates in their minds and solipsistically fire off rhetoric at these templates rather than addressing what a person actually says and the substantive points the person is trying – sometimes imperfectly – to make. If that were my MO I would never have listened to anything said in the manosphere.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    …my argument that no fault divorce has all but turned civil marriage into a civil union with almost no overlap with the cultural institution of marriage we once honored.

    That is an interesting proposal, and I think it is probably even true formally as a matter of explicit law. As a matter of explicit law, marriage in a context of no-fault divorce is basically a joke. It isn’t even a contract, as the saying goes.

    But formality is hardly all there is to a given social institution. Dalrock’s statistics show that a remarkable number of people still take marriage seriously as an institution — remarkable given its legal equivalence to kabuki theater in an asylum.

  • William Luse says:

    (Alse YOU CAN’T FIGURE ME OUT WITH YOUR PALTRY INTERNET KNOWLEDGE as a defense doesn’t work when you’ve logged your thoughts and experiences on the Internet for years. I know Lydia McGrew is old and Catholic, is she also married and childless?)

    It’s always interesting to watch people rest infallibly in their ignorance.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    “Game is part of the fallen nature.”
    Is it? This is what the Gamers claim but are they really an authority over all the planet?
    They know only a decaying American society, thus all they can claim that Game describes some facets of the decaying American society.
    All extrapolation to universal norms is entirely unsupported, based as it is on an unsupported evolutionary psychology.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    Some mortification of the flesh may not be bad for a Christian husband and gives him an opportunity to practice the mortification to which he is no otherwise inclined to.
    This is in response to the Christian Gamers.

  • Paul J Cella says:

    A truly extraordinary comment on the evening of the 27th, I see. One almost suspects counterintelligence measures of some kind.

    When cynicism gets you closer to an experience that comes closest to transcendence for the non-religious, bet on cynicism

    If men are mere beasts, expect beastly behavior. Check.

    But what if men, even men most painfully wounded in sexuality, are not and can never be mere beasts? What if even the lowest man were capable of rising to perfection, by the grace of God?

    Well, if that were true, don’t bet on cynicism.

    If Zippy will permit me a conjecture which may be a purely idle one, though of course I think it is not: I (partially) blame the Protestants (of which I am one, for the Google-illiterate) for this mess.

    Had our forebears not so violently rejected the intricate tapestry of Latin and Greek clerical vocations, had we not rationalized everything to a pastor and his flock, we would not now be bereft of ministries to young men called to celibacy. Especially in the area of the old martial orders, this loss has contributed to ramifying demasculination, so to speak. Think about what sort of impact the presence men like Jean Parisot de Valette might have on young men who found themselves ill-equipped with females.

    If I may be pardoned for one final speculation, I suspect that the martial orders may soon be making a comeback in the world. Heaven knows the secular military culture will require a sacred competitor.

    Let any man who reacts with immediate cynicism about the idea of combining martial virtue with sexual abstinence at least reflect on the plain fact that it has been done successfully. The Knights of Malta who held out against huge odds at the Great Siege were able to accomplish this extraordinary victory in part because they had, long before, set aside all the torment of feminine wiles. In our dreary modernity we have only the distant dregs of that great vision of of virtue, whereby a man might take a vow which really does immunize him against a “culture that’s unremittingly hostile to him.”

  • Bee says:

    Zippy,

    Jesus said, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” John 7: 24

    For if you cry for discernment,
    Lift your voice for understanding;
    4 If you seek her as silver
    And search for her as for hidden treasures;
    5 Then you will discern the fear of the Lord
    And discover the knowledge of God.
    6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
    From His mouth come knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 2: 3-6

    Do you believe that God gives wisdom and discernment to those that seek it?

    If a person seeks wisdom can not they read someone else’s writings and observe how they parry & thrust in a back and forth debate and then arrive at some judgements about that person?

    Certainly not a full and complete psychoanalysis, but some important judgements (insight) regarding that persons beliefs and values.

  • Mike T says:

    Bee,

    They can arrive at an analysis which seems right, but that is ultimately wrong. Those of us who have seen Lydia on other topics know that this topic seems to cause her to have what is tantamount to a meltdown. In fact it is quite disconcerting to see how much she goes off the deep end here because it is uncharacteristic of how she normally approaches discussions.

    Zippy,

    I also found it interesting to see how she and some W4 commenters/contributors reacted to my assertion that restoring some sort of patriarchal assumptions into civil marriage should be part of the conservative long-term plan. I would think that most conservatives might have some qualms about the specifics of my proposed implementation while agreeing with the general idea of aligning the law with the desired cultural state. (My specific proposal was that “in any given legal dispute between husband and wife, the state would err on the side of the husband unless the husband’s behavior was objectively criminal or would be ruinous to the family.”)

  • johnmcg says:

    @Bee,

    Do you really think that most of what you see on the manosphere in specific and the internet in general is “righteous judgement” or putting people into dismissible boxes?

    Do you think most of the categorizations one finds in comboxes are the fruit of prayerful discernment and petitions for wisdom? Or is it seen as a way to grab a quick advantage for the crowd?

    If you have any doubt about the limits of such judgments, I refer you to Dystopia Max hoisting himself on his own petard up the thread.

    e.g. I don’t think the judgment: X defended Y; Y is a woman; therefore X is a “white knight”, as generally applied in the manosphere, is a “righteous judgment” but rather an excuse to dismiss and stop listening to X.

    As zippy has catalogued, the manosphere has some keen observations about general patterns of relations between the sexes. In some cases, the general labels are useful.

    I think it falls down when it sees individual human persons as little more than a label.

  • Zippy says:

    Paul:
    The Knights of Malta who held out against huge odds at the Great Siege were able to accomplish this extraordinary victory in part because they had, long before, set aside all the torment of feminine wiles.

    Beautiful: the Knights of Malta as medieval MGTOW. It has to be tough for a young man arriving at the truth via the MRA/Game route, finding the summit and seeing that the wise men and philosophers of old have been there all along. That may be a universal experience for youth seeking genuine wisdom though: in order to become exalted we must be humbled.

  • [...] a frequent commentator at the blog ZippyCatholic, thinks that the membership of the Manosphere is unduly cynical for acknowledging the [...]

  • Kristor says:

    Zip: knighthood in general, properly so called, is MGTOW. That’s *precisely* why women have always fantasized about white knights.

  • Brendan says:

    They can arrive at an analysis which seems right, but that is ultimately wrong. Those of us who have seen Lydia on other topics know that this topic seems to cause her to have what is tantamount to a meltdown. In fact it is quite disconcerting to see how much she goes off the deep end here because it is uncharacteristic of how she normally approaches discussions.

    But that’s rather the whole point, or at least the main part of it, it seems to me. There are some issues that are just so fundamentally nuclear that even the most rational and objective minded woman is reduced to having a meltdown when they are discussed. The key question is: why is this so? And that discussion gets us directly into the FI threads that have been popping up all over this corner of the internet in the past couple of weeks.

  • The One says:

    Does anyone think if Lydia’s young children were accused of anything, she wouldn’t come to their defense? And even if shown all the facts, etc, she wouldn’t say they are my children right or wrong. No one would expect her to behave rationally, at their birth her brain was imprinted, this is the biological reality. The same situation is occurring here, it is a biological reality of women as much as passive aggressiveness is and it is a feature, not a bug.

  • Zippy says:

    What some folks seem to be missing is that, while I may have disagreed with her about the prudential wisdom of exploring manosphere subjects, Lydia made a perfectly valid point (and indeed some commentators have unwittingly confirmed it): that the manosphere tends to produce an unreal cynicism in many of its participants.

    Making an objectively true valid point is an instance of the rational imperative. If this “feminine imperative” talk has any validity it must refer to rhetorical and other strategies inherent to the female which are different from, you know, making an objectively true valid point.

  • The One says:

    Zippy, you need to define unreal cynicism. Are you saying that the facts stated in the manosphere are unreal? That how men react to these facts are unreal?

  • Zippy says:

    I’ve encountered many useful and true ideas in the manosphere as well as many cynical and false ideas. Examples of the latter, off the top of my head, are the proposition that women are incapable of love and the ludicrous notion that total strangers can read Lydia McGrew’s personal motives under a rubric of “the feminine imperative”.

  • The One says:

    I admit I didn’t read every comment, but many people are simply describing how women interact and not her personal motives as an individual. Passive aggressiveness being a biological reality for one.

    As for women being incapable of love, if 70% of (American) women initiate divorce and there is also a large % of women who remain unmarried because no one will marry them, then it indicates that a large % of American women of this generation are incapable of love (love being defined as lifelong commitment/respect to one partner)

  • They don’t call it the Battle of the Sexes for nothing.

  • Bee says:

    @johnmcg,

    My answer to your two questions: Some commenters have wisdom and discernment and some don’t. God only gives wisdom to those who actively seek it.

    You are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Because some commenters in the manosphere don’t have wisdom does not mean that all of them don’t have wisdom.

    Zippy has over inflated this. No one in the manosphere is claiming that they are offering up total and complete, 30 page “psychoanalysis over-the-wire” reports.

    It is possible for wise people to analyze what another person writes and observe how they react to a logical debate and make discerning judgments’ based on that information. If we can not judge small matters today, how will we be discerning enough to judge angels in the world to come? 1 Corinthians 6:3

  • Svar says:

    I’m glad you wrote this. I defended Lydia McGrew for that specific reason: I couldn’t stand the arrogance and pomposity of someone psychoanalyzing someone else they barely knew online.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Part of the symptomology here is that folks just don’t seem to have a clue how utterly ludicrous it all is.

    I’m starting to get the impression that this “feminine imperative” business is basically a big ad hominem. She’s a woman, she disagrees with Zippy prudentially on the value of engaging with the manosphere, so she’s not only wrong she’s also some kind of biological evo-psych robot spouting untruths (err, even though she has a point) … but of course she just can’t help herself because she is Team Woman.

    Good grief.

  • Dystopia Max says:

    Good on Lydia for on being neither childless nor Catholic :) And for both raising and teaching her kids on her own. A great many people come to a conservative temperament if not philosophy only after a certain age and station in life, and I was fearing the patterns I’d noticed among aging socons were in danger of becoming a mental stereotype.

    But I will repeat that cynicism is something that should not only be expected, but welcomed, when the entire culture has been awash in the cradle-to-grave toxic and overblown idealism of liberals for the past three generations. You should have anticipated, used, and honed this weapon long before it fell into the hands of outside parties, and now the representative of a great Christian tradition comes unprepared to the battle that hedonists and much more nominal Christians have been fighting these three years hence! On nothing but a vague sense that something wasn’t right!

    YOU have the audacity to mock THEM for being losers in life, uncouth in speech and extreme in belief? When they were fighting the culture wars on ground the mainstream church had long given up as lost and often forgotten they had ever held it? When they had no moral support from anyone but voices on the Internet whom they could not know and axioms they had to test themselves, often at great personal cost? When they could find more truths about human nature while wallowing in venial sins than piously following the church, the schools, and the world?

    If you truly have faith in your traditions, your view of life, and your personal history and witness, then you should welcome cynicism. A man who has trusted in this cynicism to melt the hordes of pretenses constructed in this sick society will pause and look again when an assault does NOT go unanswered or answered only with hissing and withdrawal. If you have a positive view of the relationship between man and woman, you will no doubt have to have a vision of an ideal couple and certain standards that must be held sacred, which could not only be used as an answer to cynics but as teaching tools for events as they occur in real time!

    Unless your appraisal of human relationships is greater than that of the Roissys and the Rooshes, able to discern the peaks and pitfalls of human relationships in more detail and more subtlety, your criticism rings hollow and your status as a representative of the Faith is hardly worth mentioning outside of local minutiae, and I shall look to Dalrock’s place for something resembling serious Christianity.

    Talk about your business experience, perhaps.

  • Svar says:

    Yeah, alot of the things the manosphere guys say against paleoconservatives and traditional Christians are just ad hominems. If you’re a woman, it’s “feminist” or one of the retarded memes that they repeat over and over until they basically beat it to death(like Team Woman or the feminine imperative). If you’re a man, it’s “white knight”. In the end, they can’t explain to us why their material reductionist viiew of the world is the right one as opposed to ours and that is what frustrates them.

    The evo-pysch and biodeterminism is very common in that sphere even amongst the “Christians” there. It’s just ridiculous though because it has nothing to do with reality but for that small group of people it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I can’t believe I used to take it seriously. There are better thinkers over at Chronicles or WWWW.

    Now, as you say, it is interesting to see where this will all go. I’m betting on nowhere. But who knows?

  • Svar says:

    “I shall look to Dalrock’s place for something resembling serious Christianity. ”

    Hahaha, you’re hilarious. His site isn’t a Christian site except when it is. “Serious Christianity” from a man who doesn’t have the balls to defend his own faith.

    Good luck.

  • The One says:

    Zippy, can you help to clarify something. You quoted Lydia saying this
    “damaging of that ability to see a woman as a gift.”

    I searched my KJV bible for gift and no where in the bible are women ever stated to be seen as a gift. The closest I came was “rejoice with the wife (not woman) of your youth” I also noticed modern translations changed the “with” to “in” completely changing the meaning of the passage. No doubt this has much to do with the influence of feminism. (Catholic bible uses the word “with” according to bible.catholic.net)

    Do you agree it’s biblical that men should view women as a gift? What do you think the passage in proverbs 5:18 means in relation to how a husband views a wife, is she the gift or are they both rejoicing together before the gift of God’s son?

    “May your fountain-head be blessed! Find joy with the wife you married in your youth,” catholic bible proverbs 5:18

    Perhaps you could do a whole post on this subject. I’m very curious about your views as I was raised catholic myself.

  • Istrice says:

    Wow you weren’t kidding zippy catholic! I came to this blog from your hobbit review and I spent the last couple hours browsing through that blog dallrocks. There’s good info on divorce and so on but the comment section reads like it was written by the Unabomber. I’m going to take a look at this “game” thing it reminds me of the movie magnolia

  • Mike T says:

    Having engaged Lydia on several other occasions about various topics ranging from game, to marriage, to family courts I have come away more confused that enlightened on precisely what she wants or thinks she is conserving. These are the things that have really stood out to me:

    1. She flat out will not have a discussion of how men are actually treated in real family courts on a regular basis.
    2. She refuses to consider that many young men, if not most young men, have borne witness to how many of the older men in their families and friends’ families were treated by ex-wives and family courts and that what they have seen has influenced them in any meaningful way.
    3. She claim to be vehemently anti-no fault divorce and yet uses language with Dalrock that a reasonable person might take to mean that she is sympathetic to many women who use no fault divorce to leave their husbands because (for example) they “lost their bet” in the man they chose to marry. She also strongly denies that no fault divorce fundamentally changed the nature of civil marriage.
    4. She strongly opposes the restoration of any sort of patriarchal values into civil marriage law, especially giving the husband even the most basic legal rights arising from and title of Head of Household before the law.
    5. She has made it clear that anything that could be considered a “men’s issue” is unwelcome on W4 or her personal blog because it might “attract creeps.”
    6. She flat out will not allow for the possibility that there are any valuable insights that the manosphere, game, etc. might impart to young men. In the way she has approached it, she seems very much to be one of those Christians who feels that the mainstream Christian pastoral approach of indoctrinating young men is beneficial rather than poisonous.

    I get the feeling that Lydia really isn’t anywhere near as conservative on these issues as she personally believes. In that she is like most conservative women, which is why I’ve alluded to the probability that conservative men will have to fight to restore the culture with very little to no assistence from most conservative women.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    I can’t speak to what Lydia has seen and said on the subject in general, because I haven’t read most of it. And obviously I disagree with her about the prudence of engaging with manosphere ideas on my blog. Nevertheless she did make a perfectly valid point about the effect that such engagement has on some men.

    This – Lydia making a perfectly valid point about the manosphere fostering, in many men, a kind of cynicism which is as disconnected from reality as any starry-eyed idealism – has now become an example in the manosphere of “the feminine imperative”. As near as I can tell this is just an ad hominem. I am working up a post on this.

  • Zippy says:

    The One:
    Do you agree it’s biblical that men should view women as a gift?

    That isn’t a question I know much of anything about, since as a Catholic “biblical” isn’t a category I use to judge truths of the natural law. I do agree with Lydia’s general point that too much cynicism about women can ruin a man and make him unsuitable for marriage, much like promiscuity, etc. (This is also true for women, in both cases).

  • Mike T says:

    Her comment would be a lot more powerful if she would actually acknowledge the validity of many of the things which cause that cynicism. I won’t give Dalrock’s readers the benefit of having seen many of her comments on W4, but I would say that my impression is that they are more right about her views here than you and Svar realize. That they arrived there by dubious, even laughable, means doesn’t mean that they are entirely wrong. A blind squirrel may on occasion find a nut (may not be a choice nut, but it’s still a nut).

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Her comment would be a lot more powerful if she would actually acknowledge the validity of many of the things which cause that cynicism.

    You mean like here?

  • The One says:

    Zippy

    I’m very confused. My understanding is Catholics use the bible and church teaching/traditions equally to judge truths. Therefore the bible should be at least half the equation, no?

    Perhaps you could explain or point me in the direction of a good primer that explains how Catholics evaluate the truth of someone’s statement. How would a Catholic begin to evaluate the truth of the statement “men should view women as a gift”

  • Zippy says:

    The One:
    Perhaps you could explain or point me in the direction of a good primer that explains how Catholics evaluate the truth of someone’s statement.

    You are asking for a primer that does not exist. Contrary to popular mythology, the Catholic Church does not tell people how to think and how to evaluate truth in general. She does claim authority on particular kinds of truth claims involving faith and morals, of course (as well as other powers and authorities, sacramental and juridical); but mostly we are on our own if we want to understand epistemology, ontology, etc.

    You might try the encyclical Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II, depending on where you are yourself in terms of understanding philosophy, epistemology, natural law, theology, etc. But understand that you are asking a rather flippant question about a very large subject. People study these things for decades without doing more than scratching the surface.

    How would a Catholic begin to evaluate the truth of the statement “men should view women as gifts”

    I can’t speak for “a Catholic” as a general thing, but my own reaction to the question is that out of context it is hopelessly vague. Women, like all people, are sometimes a gift, sometimes a burden, and sometimes all sorts of other things. Read in context it seems obvious to me that Lydia was suggesting that man and wife ought to see each other in some sense as a gift, and that salting the ground with too much cynicism can interfere with that. Seems perfectly obvious and reasonable to me.

  • [...] takes place in parallel to, and sometimes to the exclusion of, actual content.   Recent discussions on a vague-enough-to-be-postmodern idea that folks are labeling “the feminine [...]

  • The One says:

    Zippy:

    Thank you. I will look into Fides et Ratio.

    What truths if any, would you say the Catholic Church claims about the nature of women? Is there a primer for that?

    Really what I am trying to find out is if this blog will be discussing the manosphere/game/women/etc from a Catholic i.e objective truth prospective or are you blogging based on stats/logic/experience/etc which while interesting doesn’t bring anything new to the table.

  • Zippy says:

    The One:
    I generally write about whatever I feel like writing about. I have no target subject matter or demographic and it isn’t important to me who or how many read what I write. You are certainly welcome to read and comment, or not as it suits you. It is definitely not my intention to turn my blog into a manosphere blog or manosphere-centric blog: it just happens to be a subject matter I am looking into at present.

    I’m not aware of much actual doctrine about the nature of women specifically, though there is doctrine on wifely submission to husband as something concretely distinct from the husband’s sacrifice for his wife (sometimes also called ‘submission’ by modern Catholics, but really something very concretely distinct), etc. I may or may not get into those at some point. There is also plenty of doctrine on marriage, sexual sin, etc. I have in my reading backlog a book about the divorce and annulment crisis in the Church that I’ll likely talk about at some point.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    That didn’t strike me as a particularly strong example of her acknowledging the state of things that men face today. Note: I’ve never claimed that she is actually a feminist or something equivalent to that. I think her in mind she genuinely believes that women have it just as bad as men do and that “we’re in it together.” She seems to get particularly upset when I point out to her that women initiate over 70% of all divorces, most of which are no fault, and that that means we can reliably put more of the blame on women than men.

    (FWIW, when I had a blog I wrote some of my own scathing commentary about the excesses of the manosphere).

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    That didn’t strike me as a particularly strong example of her acknowledging the state of things that men face today.

    It seems to me that you are moving the goal posts a bit. It is one thing to suggest that her acknowledgement is too tepid and another to suggest that it doesn’t exist.

    But perhaps we are off into the weeds now. It isn’t as if Lydia and I agree on everything all the time, nor even would I suggest that she always fairly addresses the substantive points of others. My only point is that ascribing her comments in that thread[*] to “The Feminine Imperative [tm]” is fracking ridiculous, a self-inflicted reductio on the part of the manosphere.

    [*] Her comments, read charitably, do make a reasonable point and merely represent a difference of opinion over a prudential judgment about engagement with the manosphere. But even if they didn’t – even if she had acted the complete raving loon – it is three steps beyond silliness for total strangers to apply their powerpoint slide analysis and presume to deduce her personal motives, state of mind, etc.

  • [...] Zippy Catholic accuses me and the manosphere of being caught in the grip of a cult in his most recent post Cynicism: the starry-eyed idealism of the nihilist: [...]

  • Mike T says:

    I was actually unaware of that comment. Work and family life make following several hundred comment thread much harder than it once was for me. So for the record, I give Lydia credit for what she wrote, even if I think it was far too tepid to be useful.

  • “I’ve encountered many useful and true ideas in the manosphere as well as many cynical and false ideas.”

    A cynical idea is not necessarily false and useless.

  • I stumbled upon this blog, and I have to say, you are as much, or more bias then the ‘manosphere’ you are bashing.

    You attack cynicism for its very nature, not the facts. What if the facts conclude a cynicial outlook?

  • Zippy says:

    Sometimes idealism comports with the facts too. Nevertheless, both cynicism and idealism often form a screen across reality, trapping the person in a prison of his own making.

  • I agree both will form a screen. But to think the ‘truth’ is somehow in the middle of idealism and cynicism is fallacious. There is no reason at all truth could not be right on the edge of idealism, or on the edge of cynicism.

  • [...] elected to let it slide, because I still hoped to profit from an exchange of ideas. Yet in your Cynicism post you now declare that Lydia was right in her marathon slander of me on your blog, and both of [...]

  • Anonymous says:

    Zippy,

    This post is a bit OT.

    I haven’t caught up with this whole controversy as linked from Dalrock’s blog (although I will later in the week) but I just wanted to say I support much of what you say in this post. I have been reading and studying the Manosphere for a long time now, and, although I appreciate many things in it (including Dalrock), if I had the time I could write a book about its contradictions.

    I have noticed that those who are sympathetic to Manosphere ideas yet dare to brook dissent–even intelligently and respectfully–are frequently shamed. I could like to dozens of examples but don’t have the time now (one happened a couple of weeks ago to a very articulate female poster, who apparently has, in response to the abuse, stopped posting comments). Often, these intelligent critics disappear and stop posting because of all the hostility and sharming that greets them, usually in ganglike fashion. No doubt, you have seen the recurring pattern I speak of.

    I hope to see more intelligent criticism and dissent being voiced about the Manosphere. It is not above criticism – in fact, it should welcome criticism from potential allies instead of alienating them with shaming tactics. As more bloggers like yourself come forward, it will inspire courage in others.

    Finally, in my analysis of the Manosphere I have been reminded of a book called “The Beautiful Side of Evil” by Joanna Michelsen. In my studies I find it very helpful to keep in mind the fact that evil is very seductive. I would never be able to approach the Manosphere with discernment had I not done extensive studying of the New Age movement (including cult indoctrination) from a Christian perspective for many years beforehand. Without this knowledge and experience, the Manosphere would have sucked me in and eaten me up. I would have had no intellectual framework for understanding the rewrite of Christian morality that you find in many places in the Manosphere, nor would I have the tools to counter it.

    I have noted recentnly a growing alliance between the New Age and the Manosphere (I won’t name any names, but the information is out there), and it does not surprise me one bit. To anyone who has studied New Age it is so predictable.

    God Bless You.

  • [...] good friend over at Zippy Catholic has written an impressively eloquent post entitled “Cynicism: the starry-eyed idealism of the nihilist. ” Usually in the face of such intellectual brilliance, I simply fall silent, but this time [...]

  • Anonymous says:

    Zippy,

    I want to elaborate a little on my 3:09 post.

    One of the many tactics evil uses to seduce is through stroking of the ego (pride). We see this dynamic frequently in the Manosphere. Everyone wants to feel part of a group, to be respected and looked up to, to be accepted, to be an insider and not an outsider. This is our fallen human nature in operation. We all crave acceptance.

    One salient topical example – Ian Ironwood’s book that is coming out soon. How puffed up it will it make some Christian voices feel to be included in a book by a man as talented and articulate as Ironwood–who happens to make his living in the pornography industry–and alongside non-Christian PUA’s who glorify fornication and the using of others for sex?

    This is the conondrum Dalrock (who if memory serves me is one of the Christian bloggers included in the book, according to Ironwood’s post) and his confreres find themselves in.

    Over at Dalrock’s blog, comment threads routinely go into triple digits with gushing words of praise for the blogmaster–including ones from people who openly mock and despise Christian sexual morality. The dynamic is pretty clear to an objective observer. In our human weakness and frailty, most of us would be hard-pressed to resist the polyphonous thunder of such massive ego-stroking. It is pretty obvious that whether he realizes it ir not, Dalrock is being used.

    This is why you are now being shamed at Dalrock’s blog in the comments thread – in order to increase the group cohesiveness and the “feel good” vibe of togetherness of the rainbow coalition of Manospherists, Zippycatholic has to be torn down and marginalized. It’s just your turn this week. Last week it was someone else at another Mano blog, and next week it will be someone else.

  • Name some names, how many Manosphere bloggers are New Age?

  • Anonymous says:

    Gregariouswolf,

    Do your own research.

  • So anonymous, you’re going to paint the Manosphere as New Age or anti-Christian or whatnot, but not offer any evidence to back up your claim?

    Okeydoke.

  • Brendan says:

    That kind of drive-by criticism is both disingenuous and unhelpful, anonymous.

  • OK I’m new to the blogging scene. When I think of “New Age” I think of crystal energy and goddess power type stuff. I haven’t seen anything like that.

  • Zippy says:

    I agree with Anonymous that the manosphere does more than its own share of shaming, with no small irony. On the other hand I haven’t seen anything personally that would suggest a strong connection between the manosphere and New Age. My impression is that all sorts of people have stumbled into the manosphere. I see common threads from evo-psych/materialism and PUA, of course, but the New Age contention did strike me as odd. I’d have to see more to know what I think of it.

  • Anonymous says:

    Ok Gregarious – I will agree to enter your frame momentarily.

    Ian Ironwood works in the pornography industry and Roosh writes instructional books about how to pick up women for casual sex. The sexual morality embraced or at least tolerated by people like this–and this appears to be most bloggers and commentors in the Manosphere–is anti-Christian. If you need any more “proof” that the mano is antichristian, then if I told you that water is wet you would probably ask for proof of that also.

    With regard to New Age – I don’t know how much you know about New Age. Have you read Alice Bailey and Blavatsky? Have you read Constance Cumbey and Warren Smith? Do you even know what the New Age movement is? The Manosphere pushes New Age ideas both covertly and overtly. Covertly, it embraces many of its practices but without labelling these things “New Age,” such as NLP. Moreover its hedonistic and debased attitude toward human sexuality would fit right in at the Ordo Templi Orientis.

    Overtly, take a look at the speaking schedules of some of the more prominent writers and teachers associated with the Manosphere (those who are known by their first and last name). If you follow those leads you will find some of the information I am alluding to. I have done this research and I went far enough down the rabbitt hole to confirm my suspicions as well as find more than I had anticipated, but I am not planning to share this particular research with anyone at the moment, although I may do so in the future.

    My reason for not sharing? I have very little respect for most commenters in the Manosphere (Zippy is one of a handful of exceptions), and unless and until they earn my respect, I will not share the fruits of my research about their movement absent a very compelling reason. I am not throwing pearls before swine.

  • Dear Anonymous,

    You are free to disagree with people’s choices with regard to sexual morality, but I find your post to undertones of a conspiracy theorist.

    -Greg

  • Zippy says:

    gregariouswolf:
    You are free to disagree with people’s choices with regard to sexual morality

    In the land of the objectively true he isn’t just free to disagree: he is objectively right.

  • Zippy says:

    (I know next to nothing about New Age, so I can’t comment on it).

  • Anonymous says:

    Zippy,

    The New Age is much more than crystals and hippies. To understand its immense but subtle influence on our culture you have to study its history, which includes the Theosophical Society, and the writings of Alice Bailey and Madame Blavatsky. You can get the book Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow by Constance Cumbey downloaded for free. I’d say it’s the seminal scholarly work on this subject.

    If you post your email address I will contact you and we can discuss this issue privately at some point.

  • Zippy says:

    My email address is available under About.

  • “In the land of the objectively true he isn’t just free to disagree: he is objectively right.”

    I think we ought to agree to disagree on that.

  • Zippy says:

    gregariouswolf:

    One of the long-time themes that runs through my writing is that natural law morality is knowable and objective. (That doesn’t mean it is trivial: quantum physics is knowable and objective but is hardly trivial).

  • Anonymous says:

    In the land of the objectively true he isn’t just free to disagree: he is objectively right.

    Thanks Zippy, spot on.

    The manos are aligned de facto with the New Age insofar as they do not believe in an objective sexual morality, in effect they do not believe in a God who judges man. This is exactly what the New Age seeks to destroy — the belief in a God who judges man. The manos make up their own sexual rules (“game is amoral” they say when actually,game is IMMoral).

  • That’s great, but it doesn’t change my response.

  • Anonymous says:

    I find your post to undertones of a conspiracy theorist.

    Interesting, since many mano commenters push the idea that everything wrong in the world is the result of some feminist conspiracy, for which all women, by virtue of their gender, are responsible for and complicit with.

    I should add that I see feminism as problematic, but it is only one variable in the equation. The pornography culture, for example, has done as much damage to marriage and family as feminism, and in fact, probably more. Yet it is tolerated and even embraced (Ian Ironwood) by Mano heavyweights.

    The manosphere is filled with these kinds of contradictions, for those who have eyes to see.

  • Anonymous says:

    Zippy,

    I will shoot you a mail later this week. I want to read the threads at Dalrock first. There are a good few imano ssues I would like to discuss with you if you are interested.

  • Dear Anonymous, when someone brings up hidden dangers and occult societies, my conspiracy detector starts to go off.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Gregariouswolf,

    Then you have probably drunk the koolaid of disinformation.

    Moreover, given that you don’t appear to believe in objective morality (as Zippy and I do), I would be of the view that you are wasting your time talking to me. What I have to say here at Zippy;s blog is specifically targeted at Christians like Zippy who are grappling with the problems in the manosphere from a Christian perspective, and you aren’t in that group. Waste of time for you,IMO.

    I am changing my screen name to Anonymous1, for purposes of clarity.

  • New Age?
    That is a new allegation.

    There is absolutely an overt ANTI Christian bent in much of the testostosphere. In fact its so pervasive at AVFM I cannot read there. Elam doesn’t do it, but reading the comments written by 25 year old men pontificating their reasons for rejecting any faith whatsoever was too much like grading freshman philosophy papers. Boring.

    There is also a politically liberal bent rampant in the sphere, which is even more amazing than the anti Christian one, maybe. It’s not surprising it generally coincides with the most ostentatious of the game crowd, and that I suppose makes sense.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Empathologism,

    In American Politics, when you remove eonomics from the equation, the left is characterized by social liberalism and the right by social conservatism. The sexual morality that is the norm in the manosphere is part of social liberalism, so it would make since that ithe PUA wing would embrace liberal politics.

  • Vic says:

    http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/search/label/marriage

    From Lydia’s Post:
    “This false dichotomy between love as unimportant emotion and love as a settled feeling built up over years even makes him write the following, to my mind highly distasteful, passage from The Four Loves which goes so far as to praise sexual intercourse without love.

    Most of our ancestors were married off in early youth to partners chosen by their parents on grounds that had nothing to do with Eros. They went to the act with no other “fuel,” so to speak, than plain animal desire. And they did right; honest Christian husbands and wives, obeying their fathers and mothers, discharging to one another their “marriage debt,” and bringing up families in the fear of the Lord.

    This is quintessentially and self-evidently a passage written by a male, and I would say, written by a male who knows little about women. It entirely ignores the strong connection for many women between emotions like affection and a feeling of being cherished, loved, and protected, on the one hand, and sexual desire, on the other. “

    Evidently from Lydia’s blog, C.S. Lewis has fallen under Lydia’s scornful eye as “a male who knows little about women.”

    C.S. Lewis’s brilliance wasn’t because he was male or even Christian, he was a relentless thinker. He thought and considered things more deeply than any writer I have ever read and his words should be considered very carefully lest you make a fool of yourself.

    If Lydia wasn’t real, Dalrock would have to invent her to make his point. I honestly pray that more men read her posts and blog and that she remains active on this sight. I mean that sincerely.

    I will post what she writes whenever I have a chance, not to mock, but to be instructive to younger men. Younger men who have seen the darker nature of women unleashed in their homes and in family courts. Men who have watched their fathers financially destroyed because of the darker nature of women…unleashed in a culture that insists that a woman is “a gift” that a man should appreciate.

    Thank you, this blog post and thread have been very instructive, as well.

  • Fuller says:

    “Where promiscuity prevails, they [women] will therefore always be more often the victims than the culprits”

    Yea, C.S. Lewis is a great person to learn about women’s nature from. If anyone denies agency to women and blames all of her problems on a male, it is good old C.S. Lewis.

    “I have no sympathy with moralists who frown at the increasing crudity of female provacativeness”

    Yea, defending good Catholics sure is C.S. Lewis’ main goal.

  • Vic says:

    Fuller –
    Thank you, I couldn’t have stated it better myself! Good find.

  • Asher says:

    @ Zippy

    God is pure subject par excellence. An absolute standard of right and wrong that originates with God is purely subjective.

    I think you are conflating absolute with objective and relative with subject. Moralities contingent on the changing world of objects are relative and a morality contingent on an unchanging subject, in this case God. That conflation seems to have been around for awhile.

    It reminds me of the verse in Joshua where it says that every man did what was right in his own life. But that’s not a subjective morality, that is the absence of morality.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    I shall look to Dalrock’s place for something resembling serious Christianity. ”

    Hahaha, you’re hilarious. His site isn’t a Christian site except when it is. “Serious Christianity” from a man who doesn’t have the balls to defend his own faith.

    Svar,

    Your assessment of Dalrock is spot on. As I implied earlier in this thread, Dalrock’s achilles heel is his intellectual vanity. A Christian need only take account of Paul’s letters to know how susceptible the more cerebral among us such as Dalrcok are to this pernicious vice.

    Warm fuzzies from the likes of FuriousFerret and his confreres are, we are compelled to conclude from Dalrock’s fruits, much more satisfying to Dalrock than the lonely task of defending the scandalous Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such is the trajectory of Useful Idiots like Dalrock.

    If Dalrock had the courage of the convictions he claims to possess he would subject his weird views on sexual morality to a mainstream orthodox Christian audience instead of holding court with pornographers and fornicators. Oh wait a second – those orthodox Christians are all “White Knights” (if male) or “Feminists” and/or “Solipsists” if female. LOL.

    Sooner or later Dalrock will have to make a choice to either abandon Christianity or start his own Christian denomination – one where the gospel is twisted to allow the belief that pornography, fornication, and categorical ridicule and disrespect of an entire gender are consistent with the clear commands of Jesus Christ. Deti etc. can be the first joiners of this new denomination. It will be interesting to watch as it unfolds.

    The macho posturing in the Manosphere has little or nothing to do with real masculinity. True masculinity is rare. Dalrock and his macho confreres would cr*p in their Fruit of the Loom briefs if they ever encountered a genuinely masculine male (what I refer to as a “White Knight Alpha Wolf”).

  • Anonymous1 says:

    That term should be “White Knight Wolf Alpha” (with a nod to Vox Day) not “White Knight Alpha Wolf.”

  • Anonymous1 says:

    That above term should be “White Knight Wolf Alpha” (with a nod to Vox Day) not “White Knight Alpha Wolf.”

  • [...] honor of a comment which implied that I have imbibed of the proverbial kool-aid and that talking to me was casting [...]

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Sooner or later Dalrock will have to make a choice to either abandon Christianity or start his own Christian denomination – one where the gospel is twisted to allow the belief that pornography, fornication, and categorical ridicule and disrespect of an entire gender are consistent with the clear commands of Jesus Christ.

    Just to be very clear – I do not mean to imply that Dalrock personally approves of pornography, fornication, and the categorical disrespect of the female gender. It is clear from reading his blog, however, that he is friendly with many non-Christian bloggers and commenters who do. If he starts his own denomination, presumably he will continue in that vein.

    How does Dalrock reconcile these fruits with the Christian faith he otherwise professes? That is the million-dollar question.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Just to be very clear – I do not mean to imply that Dalrock personally approves of pornography, fornication, and the categorical disrespect of the female gender.

    I would add Deti to the above statement:

    Just to be very clear – I do not mean to imply that Dalrock or Deti personally approves of pornography, fornication, and the categorical disrespect of the female gender.

    I appreciate both Deti and Dalrock in many ways, but I am sick to death of their hypocrisy, the way they are both being manipulated and used, and the damage it is doing in the name of the Gospel.

    With all the finger-pointing going on the last couple of days it is important to remain dispassionate, accurate, and intellectually honest when taking other mano writers to task for their behavior and beliefs lest this discussion descent into a flame war which benefits absolutely no one except non-Christian manos.

    Can someone please tell me if Rollo Tomassi and Private Man claim to be Christians?

  • slumlord says:

    If Dalrock had the courage of the convictions he claims to possess he would subject his weird views on sexual morality to a mainstream orthodox Christian audience instead of holding court with pornographers and fornicators

    What a load of bollocks.

    That’s the old “he hangs around with sinners” argument used by the Pharisees against Jesus.

    Ah…… the moral superiority of the pious.

  • katmandutu says:

    Anonymous1 you sum up succinctly my own thoughts here. Even Svar a young man of 19 can see staraight through him

    Dalrock is indeed a hypocrite.

    I too have wondered how he could allow such unchristian commentary on his blog when he purports to be a happily married ( christian) father.

    I mentioned this sometime ago myself, on various blogs.

    Women who appear to counter what Dalrock believes are given short shrift. He then allows his minions to disparage these women with impunity.

    For some time all this had bothered me greatly. I myself was accussed of being a slut sympathizer and a feminist, (I am a happily married practising Catholic, mother) simply because I politely engaged with a feminist going by the handle of Doomed Harlot. Whilst I did not agree with her stance– and I said so at the time– she was pleasant and not rude and I returned the favour.

    I never knew her from Adam of course,and was extrememly surprised at how Dalrock and the other men pounced on her .

    I noticed all too often that Dalrock whilst allowing men to villify women on his blog, would turn a blind eye to male commenters who were fornicators or who approved of pornography.

    By not calling out these men, he implied a tacit approval of their beliefs and activities.

    On one occasion commenter Greenlander, gloated about cheating on his LTR .She was quite a few years younger than he was. He boasted that she was a good girl and that she was indeed marriage material. Yet, he was cheating on her.
    He also referred to women as c***s..

    Did blog host Dalrock stand up and defend Christ’s teaching against fornication.. NO! Not a peep from him.

    When I questioned him once about this inconsistency, he replied, that just because he makes no comment does not mean he approves of certain comments made by others at his blog.

    I and a few others were put in comment moderation (not toeing the party line) Whilst men like grey ghost(the guy who was always saying that no woman can ever love-only men can love) and Greenlander et al were free to to spew their bile.

    I also began to wonder what his wife must think(perhaps she is not a christian) about allowing such hateful things about women in general.

    “Warm fuzzies from the likes of FuriousFerret and his confreres are, we are compelled to conclude from Dalrock’s fruits, much more satisfying to Dalrock than the lonely task of defending the scandalous Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such is the trajectory of Useful Idiots like Dalrock.

    If Dalrock had the courage of the convictions he claims to possess he would subject his weird views on sexual morality to a mainstream orthodox Christian audience instead of holding court with pornographers and fornicators. Oh wait a second – those orthodox Christians are all “White Knights” (if male) or “Feminists” and/or “Solipsists” if female. LOL.”

    THIS ^

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Slumlord,

    Dalrock’s behavior and Jesus’s are polar opposites.

    Jesus hung around with sinners in order to bring them to repentance, not to make them comfortable in their sins (as Dalrock does with his fan club of unrepentant sinners).

    Are you a Christian by the way? I don’t recognize your moniker.

  • Mike T says:

    Interesting, since many mano commenters push the idea that everything wrong in the world is the result of some feminist conspiracy, for which all women, by virtue of their gender, are responsible for and complicit with.

    I should add that I see feminism as problematic, but it is only one variable in the equation. The pornography culture, for example, has done as much damage to marriage and family as feminism, and in fact, probably more. Yet it is tolerated and even embraced (Ian Ironwood) by Mano heavyweights.

    And how did the pornography culture get started? Right, the sexual revolution which was enthusiastically supported, aided and abetted by feminists on the grounds that it would give women the same sexual freedom men allegedly had. Most Christians and feminists have something in common on the sexual revolution, btw. That would be buying into the apex fallacy; they look at the top 10% of the male population (in terms of attractiveness to women) getting laid disproportionately and apply that to men generally.

    If Dalrock had the courage of the convictions he claims to possess he would subject his weird views on sexual morality to a mainstream orthodox Christian audience instead of holding court with pornographers and fornicators

    And the response he would get on how men should behave would sound an awful lot like “John’s” responses on this W4 thread. (Ex: a husband has no right to “force” his wife to accept any decision he wishes to make for the family, she is free to rebel against him whenever she wants).

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Mike T,

    Old script blaming “Feminism” for the depravity found in the pornography movement, a meme so widely embraced and supported in the Manosphere. Repeating it ad naseum, however, does not make it true. As anyone who has studied Feminism knows, it is a diverse movement, with its most radical elements being vehemently anti-pornography.

    If you want to know the truth about the origins of the pornography movement and the destruction it wrought on American culture, read Judith Reisman’s work for a start.

    You Manos talk incessantly about how a woman should submit to her husband, and this is indeed biblical. What you routinely leave out is the fact that this is a two way street which requires the husband to love his wife like Christ loves his Church. But that would mean men have to submit to a moral authority higher than their own unbridled sexual desires, and that wouldn’t go down very well with the sexual hedonism which characterizes the Manosphere, would it?

  • Anonymous1 says:

    P.S. — the term “Apex Fallacy” is a clubby Manosphere concept which is not found in the Bible. You and your fellow manos (including your female fellow travellers who have found “special favor” with mano men for being “unplugged”) who know the secret handshake are free to believe in it, and to throw it around as though it is as self-evident as 2+2 = 4, but doing so does not make it true.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    If you want to know the truth about the origins of the pornography movement and the destruction it wrought on American culture, read Judith Reisman’s work for a start.

    Correction to the above:

    If you want to know the truth about the origins of the sexual revolution/pornography movement and the destruction it wrought on American culture, read Judith Reisman’s work for a start.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Zippy,

    Thanks for letting me post here on your blog. If I wrote this kind of stuff at a Mano blog I would be opening myself to a tirade of vicious verbal abuse, including personal insults and ad hominem attacks. I have seen this dynamic numerous times at various mano blogs, and the result is that sincere posters withdraw and all debate is in effect stifled.

    If you don’t want me to continue stirring up this hornet’s nest here at your blog, just let me know. I respect the fact that this is your blog, and you set the rules.

    God Bless.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    If Dalrock had the courage of the convictions he claims to possess he would subject his weird views on sexual morality to a mainstream orthodox Christian audience instead of holding court with pornographers and fornicators

    And the response he would get on how men should behave would sound an awful lot like “John’s” responses on this W4 thread. (Ex: a husband has no right to “force” his wife to accept any decision he wishes to make for the family, she is free to rebel against him whenever she wants).

    This is more evidence of why Dalrock will most likely either break with Christianity or start his own “Christian” denomination.

    If the orthodox Christians have been wrong for the last 2,000 years, and Dalrock and his confreres are “right” and the “only true Christians,” these anointed ones (meaning, Dalrock and his confreres) certainly do owe it to their millions of misguided Christian brethren to set them straight and assist them in exiting the Matrix now, don’t they? LOL.

  • The sexual morality that is the norm in the manosphere is part of social liberalism, so it would make since that ithe PUA wing would embrace liberal politics.

    Yes this is exactly correct. Add that the sexual morality of the left, along with the social liberalism AND add back the economics all grease the skids for feminism is its every form, even the evangelical sort of feminism

  • Zippy says:

    Anonymous1:
    the term “Apex Fallacy” is a clubby Manosphere concept which is not found in the Bible.

    FWIW, I think it describes a real phenomenon observable in the world. The most visible members of a group become the stereotype for that group. Alpha males are the most visible group of men, to women. So women tend to think that most men are alpha males.

  • Mike T says:

    Old script blaming “Feminism” for the depravity found in the pornography movement, a meme so widely embraced and supported in the Manosphere. Repeating it ad naseum, however, does not make it true. As anyone who has studied Feminism knows, it is a diverse movement, with its most radical elements being vehemently anti-pornography.

    And yet most of them agreed on unleashing female sexuality which had the practical effect of helping the pornography culture.

    You Manos

    Congratulations, you just did to me what Zippy accused Dalrock’s commenters of doing to Lydia.

    talk incessantly about how a woman should submit to her husband, and this is indeed biblical. What you routinely leave out is the fact that this is a two way street which requires the husband to love his wife like Christ loves his Church. But that would mean men have to submit to a moral authority higher than their own unbridled sexual desires, and that wouldn’t go down very well with the sexual hedonism which characterizes the Manosphere, would it?

    I await with bated breath your insightful explanation of how criticizing my take on social conservatives by applying my argument to a completely different crowd is supposed to be some scathing rebuttal of anything I said…

    If the orthodox Christians have been wrong for the last 2,000 years, and Dalrock and his confreres are “right” and the “only true Christians,” these anointed ones (meaning, Dalrock and his confreres) certainly do owe it to their millions of misguided Christian brethren to set them straight and assist them in exiting the Matrix now, don’t they? LOL.

    Insofar as this is a matter of orthodoxy, what is practiced today by most “orthodox Christians” is not the orthodoxy of the last two thousand years. For example, many “devout and conservative Christians” preach “mutual submission” which is heresy according to Ephesians 5. Christ does not submit to the Church, full stop on that point. In practice, many self-professed orthodox Christians do not actually support the concept of male headship of the household, even by men who clearly meet your criteria above in spades.

    The point about “John” at W4 is that he is like most of the people you think “get it right.” He says he is head of household but doesn’t even have a moral right to tell his wife “the decision has been made and is final” when she disagrees with him.

    Now I am not convinced this is a matter of orthodoxy for the practical reason that scripture and tradition don’t go into the nuts and bolts of being a masculine man. That was once understood as part of the larger cultural fabric in which scripture and tradition operated. The scripture and tradition teach us how to be righteous men, but don’t teach men how to appear masculine, confident, capable, etc. in any sort of detail that is capable of imparting practical training to men without them because that is not their job (rather it is to inform their morals and faith).

    You can be so orthodox that Jesus might get uncomfortable in your presence and still be a weak-willed wuss of a man who no woman would ever want as a husband. You can also be so deluded about yourself that you mistake your personality flaws for virtues, which is what most “betas” do. Many in the church have built an entire theology around this assumption of the virtue of the beta because it is too painful to consider that an alpha male can be a truly righteous man while the beta can be a moral idiot or outright scumbag (and often is).

  • Mike T says:

    P.S. — the term “Apex Fallacy” is a clubby Manosphere concept which is not found in the Bible. You and your fellow manos (including your female fellow travellers who have found “special favor” with mano men for being “unplugged”) who know the secret handshake are free to believe in it, and to throw it around as though it is as self-evident as 2+2 = 4, but doing so does not make it true.

    Denunciations of Bukkake (warning to Zippy’s less worldly readers DO NOT GOOGLE!) and BDSM are not to be found in the Bible either. What’s your point? Are you one of those Protestants who thinks that if it’s not in the Bible it must not be a real world phenomenon or moral issue?

    The apex fallacy is a very simple concept: a less observant individual looks at the most visible and successful members of a group and applies that observation to the entire larger group without first examining whether it might be an exception to the rule. Got news for you: this concept applies in many areas of life. For example, it applies to the way that business owners and leaders are judged by the Left and populists. In case I need to spell that out for you, they judge the lot in life of the average business owner/leader (from the sole proprietor on up) by the lavish lifestyles of high flying corporate executives for major companies.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T wrote:
    Congratulations, you just did to me what Zippy accused Dalrock’s commenters of doing to Lydia.

    I’ve got to agree. Part of the reason I framed my discussion as tendencies within the manosphere is because the stereotype has limitations: there is no universal “manosphere commenter”, and individuals get to decide for themselves if they are going to engage in the behaviors I criticized (or continue to engage in them, as the case may be).

    In the Rubbernecking thread that started this whole hubbub my concern about the commenter Chris was laughably wrongheaded, given his genteel and reasonable nature: after some period of time experiencing the worst of the jackassosphere as a lurker, the very first commenter to come across to my place was the polar opposite of the stereotype I had formed. I was within my rights to warn newbies about how things are here, but God was wonderfully ironic in placing Chris before me as the trigger for the warning, which should have come with a disclaimer that I was not suggesting that anyone had transgressed protocol.

    Anyway, you’ve misread Mike T if you think he straightforwardly fits your stereotype.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Zippy,

    I haven’t actually read any of the background threads to this whole Lydia thing and in that respect have perhaps put the cart before the horse by jumping in here prematurely. I am going to have to do my homework here and read them, and then I will get back to you and Mike.

    I jumped the gun on Mike T by making assumptions (sorry Mike) who I have never seen before this thread. That’s what happens when emotions override logic–which is the prevailing norm at mano sites where when anyone dares to question the status quo they are shamed with testosterone-induced temper tantrums.

    I should not be imitating the methods of those whose tactics and morals I despise. Lesson learned.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Let’s not get derailed here though, and let’s keep it simple.

    My original point still stands. Dalrock has succumbed to intellectual vanity and has become a useful idiot for deeply anti-Christian forces. He keeps company with people who flagrantly engage in obnoxious, disgusting, highly immoral, anti-Christian behavior, and who do so in a celebratory and unrepentant fashion. He is being used by them to push their anti-Christian agenda.

    Is this behavior on Dalrock’s part consistent with loving his wife as Christ loves the Church?

  • Zippy says:

    Anonymous1:

    I agree with this as an objective observation:
    He keeps company with people who flagrantly engage in obnoxious, disgusting, highly immoral, anti-Christian behavior, and who do so in a celebratory and unrepentant fashion.

    As for this:
    Dalrock has succumbed to intellectual vanity …

    You are attempting to read his psychology over the wire.

  • deti says:

    “I’ve encountered many useful and true ideas in the manosphere as well as many cynical and false ideas. Examples of the latter, off the top of my head, are the proposition that women are incapable of love”

    I’m surprised at the intellectual dishonesty here. That’s not the argument and never has been. Based on observation and anecdotal evidence, it is seen that women do not love men the way men love women. Or, alternatively, that women do not love men the way a man wants her to love him.

    A woman can love a man and is capable of loving a man. It is simply that the quality and character of that love is different from the quality and character of a man’s love. The way her love manifests itself is different from the way his love manifests itself.

    The argument has never ever been that women cannot love or are incapable of love.

  • Zippy says:

    Deti:
    The argument has never ever been that women cannot love or are incapable of love.

    Then it shouldn’t be stated that way.

    Stated in its “softer” form it is ridiculous: women can’t love men in a way that makes the man haaaaaapy.

    Well cry me a river.

  • deti says:

    Zippy:

    Take that up with the commenter and don’t attribute it to Dalrock or the manosphere at large.

    “Stated in its “softer” form it is ridiculous: women can’t love men in a way that makes the man haaaaaapy.

    “Well cry me a river.”

    Leaving aside the snark: That would be fine, as long as men are taught this. You know, I can actually accept a woman’s limitations as long as I am taught them and know about them. That also goes both ways: If I am to accept her limitations; she needs to accept mine. But men are not taught these things, men don’t learn them and internalize them, and women by and large in today’s culture do not and will not accept men’s limitations.

    What is the RCC doing to teach its men this basic truth, that the quality and character of a woman’s love for a man is fundamentally different from the quality and character of a man’s love for a woman? That he cannot expect her to deal with him as a man does? What is the RCC doing to teach men this? I can tell you as a Prot in North America that my Prot denomination doesn’t even KNOW this, much less be able to instruct men on it.

  • Zippy says:

    Deti:
    … don’t attribute it to Dalrock or the manosphere at large.

    First, I’ve encountered that idea in numerous places, and just used Google to get a quick reference to one. Second, you are complaining about something I didn’t say. I said:

    “I’ve encountered many useful and true ideas in the manosphere as well as many cynical and false ideas. Examples of the latter, off the top of my head, are the proposition that women are incapable of love … ”

    I know that you know I said that, because you just quoted me saying it.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Dalrock has succumbed to intellectual vanity …

    You are attempting to read his psychology over the wire.

    I am speculating about his motivation being intellectual vanity based on his fruits.

    My observation (and it is obviously just my opinion) has nothing to do with the DSM manual or any of the conditions found in it.

  • Zippy says:

    Anonymous1:
    I am speculating about his motivation being intellectual vanity based on his fruits.

    Yes, well, however you describe it I think that sort of mind reading is tommyrot.

  • Mike T says:

    @deti

    I’m surprised at the intellectual dishonesty here. That’s not the argument and never has been. Based on observation and anecdotal evidence, it is seen that women do not love men the way men love women. Or, alternatively, that women do not love men the way a man wants her to love him.

    Reverse the genders and that’s the basis of Game, isn’t it? To make men capable of loving women in a way that gets them submissive and hot and bothered (ie what women want from a man). Isn’t the main complaint of so many women that the way that the ordinary beta-if-not-delta-or-gamma male loves her is repulsive?

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Yes, well, however you describe it I think that sort of mind reading is tommyrot.

    We are not mind readers, but we are fruit inspectors. Which raises the question then – what conclusions CAN we draw about Dalrock’s behavior in the following regard?:

    He keeps company with people who flagrantly engage in obnoxious, disgusting, highly immoral, anti-Christian behavior, and who do so in a celebratory and unrepentant fashion.

    Leaving aside the question of intellectual credibility, does Dalrock have any moral credibility with you? Does the word “scandal” apply here in any way?

    I’m not being facetious – I respect you and want to know your thoughts.

  • Mike T says:

    @Anonymous1

    I jumped the gun on Mike T by making assumptions (sorry Mike) who I have never seen before this thread. That’s what happens when emotions override logic–which is the prevailing norm at mano sites where when anyone dares to question the status quo they are shamed with testosterone-induced temper tantrums.

    Noted and accepted. FWIW, I’m probably the only somewhat manosphereish commenter or blogger who has really tried to engage Lydia on these topics and even I seem more validity in Zippy’s arguments than Dalrock viz a viz the methodology.

    I think your main problem is that you cannot separate the source from the advice. A lot of the advice these bloggers give is tremendously more valuable on the “nuts and bolts” of how to interact with women than what comes from mainstream social conservatives and Christians. In fact, some of the latter is as insidiously poisonous (ex. boundless.org which enthusiastically teaches men to be supplicating, self-deprecating fools before women).

    My biggest grievance with the manosphere and MRM has always been that most of them are just the male version of gender feminist radicals. They are incapable of acknowledging that most of the things they are rightfully upset about are distinctly Western, if not American, problems. Women as a group are not inherently as bad as so many American women are. It is not a gender thing, it’s a culture issue with gender components.

  • Purple Tortoise says:

    Rather than engage in blanket condemnations, perhaps it would be useful to ask why some Christian men get interested in manosphere/game topics. For me, it was because aspects of the manosphere/game perspective provided a better explanation of my life experience than the standard church explanation (though I certainly don’t endorse all manosphere/game views). If churches and traditionalist Christian blogs spoke on these issues, perhaps people like me wouldn’t look to the manosphere.

    I wanted to get married as a young man but had a hard time finding a suitable wife. I was a hard worker, embarked on a successful career, faithfully participated in church, had much biblical knowledge, was prepared to be a spiritual leader, no addictions/red flags, etc., but could not get even a girlfriend. I found that young Christian women instead preferred men who were weak Christian men or not Christians at all. I doubt they were sluts or fornicating, but many 20-something Christian women wasted years spending time with men they could not marry. And I don’t think I was shooting out of my league, because I eventually found an excellent wife when I was in my mid-30s, but most of the women I had known in my 20s never married or married a poor prospect in their late 30s.

    The standard church/traditionalist blog didn’t have a good explanation for my experience, but the Game blogs did. I realize now that in my 20s I had not been sufficiently pushing the attraction triggers for women. Being a good Christian man is not enough. And the Christian women were not being instructed to think more sensibly about finding a husband, but instead let themselves be led by infatuation and hoped that a bad man would somehow turn into a good man.

    I’m happily married now, but I want to give my daughters and son a better preparation for finding a good Christian spouse than I had. Taking the good parts out of manosphere/game blogs helps, but I don’t find much that is useful in the traditionalist blogs.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    What is the RCC doing to teach its men this basic truth, that the quality and character of a woman’s love for a man is fundamentally different from the quality and character of a man’s love for a woman? That he cannot expect her to deal with him as a man does? What is the RCC doing to teach men this?

    Zippy can address this better than I, but I will have a stab, since I have studied Catholicism and have enormous respect for it.

    The RCC from what I understand, does not claim to teach opinions but universal moral truths. Your statement above is an opinion (regardless of whether you, I, or Zippy agree with it), not a universal moral truth. So you can hardly expect the RCC to be teaching it.

  • Mike T says:

    Anonymous1,

    Read this. It’s a female Christian’s take on the rubbish being perpetrated on young male Christians by many mainstream churches. The attitude she is ripping is what several of us here on the Christian side (including Zippy) have been saying that Christians have been teaching young men and that is leading them deeply astray. Most of your “orthodox Christians” are guilty of encouraging young men to relate like this.

  • deti says:

    “First, I’ve encountered that idea in numerous places, and just used Google to get a quick reference to one. Second, you are complaining about something I didn’t say.”

    So what? Let’s address the substance. I agree that women can love men, that women are capable of love.

    You return with snark, saying that in other words, the way she loves him doesn’t make him haaaappy. THis suggests to me that you don’t believe a man should expect his woman to tailor her responses to him. It suggests to me that you believe a man should just accept and deal with frustration and unfulfillment. It suggests that this very real concern of men isn’t really an issue, at least not to you.

    Uh, isn’t that a bit of a problem? Isn’t this one of the things that men justifiably complain about? And since it can’t be changed, shouldn’t men learn of it and plan and deal with it accordingly? And shouldn’t the churches be way out in front on this, instead of playing catchup to some dude from Dallas and a mid-level government bureaucrat living in D.C.?

    And shouldn’t the converse be true: That a man doesn’t love a woman the way she wants to be loved and this doesn’t make her haaappy either? Shouldn’t she just learn to “deal with it” and not frivorce her husband because of it? Can her man justifiably say to her “tough cookies, I am who I am and you just have to deal with it”?

  • Zippy says:

    Deti:
    And shouldn’t the converse be true: That a man doesn’t love a woman the way she wants to be loved and this doesn’t make her haaappy either? Shouldn’t she just learn to “deal with it” and not frivorce her husband because of it? Can her man justifiably say to her “tough cookies, I am who I am and you just have to deal with it”?

    Yes.

    Mind you, there is an obligation to try to make a marriage work, and that involves effort. But that is way overblown in our Oprahfied society. Men and women are different, she isn’t going to be miss dreamypants and make your every moment bliss, and he isn’t going to be mister hunky handyman fifty shades of twilight multimillionare. People need to just deal with it. It is a first world problem:

  • deti says:

    “Mind you, there is an obligation to try to make a marriage work, and that involves effort. But that is way overblown in our Oprahfied society. Men and women are different, she isn’t going to be miss dreamypants and make your every moment bliss, and he isn’t going to be mister hunky handyman fifty shades of twilight multimillionare. People need to just deal with it.”

    Believe me, I know. There is more common ground here than you think.

    And if “people need to just deal with it”, then the Church (including the RCC) needs to be OUT IN FRONT on it and educating people on it instead of kowtowing to the women and browbeating the men. Women demand the church cave in to their demands (always with the veiled threat of “do what I want or I’m leaving the church and taking my volunteer time and my tithe money with me!” And the men usually stand by and say nothing.)

  • deti says:

    Mike T:

    “Reverse the genders and that’s the basis of Game, isn’t it? To make men capable of loving women in a way that gets them submissive and hot and bothered (ie what women want from a man). Isn’t the main complaint of so many women that the way that the ordinary beta-if-not-delta-or-gamma male loves her is repulsive?”

    Yes, precisely. It’s also why men at the manosphere sites continually exhort women to be nice, pleasant, kind, be sexually available, learn to cook and clean, and be submissive. Because the main complaint of so many men is that the woman doesn’t know how to love a man the way he wants to be loved and instead projects her own expectations onto him. Frustration and lack of fulfillment abound.

  • Zippy says:

    deti:
    We are agreed that there is a terrible pastoral problem, though having run a few small organizations myself I have some sympathy for the complexity of pastoral problems in a social context. Nevertheless I do agree with Dalrock that the churches need to do better here. I’m not sure the churches would listen to the manosphere as presently constituted for all sorts of reasons though.

    Another commenter in one of these threads made the point that managing the social relationships between men and women isn’t really the primary charism of the Church (much like managing politics isn’t really the charism of the Church). I think there is some validity to that: as an RC I understand the Church’s charism to be primarily teaching the basics of faith and morals along with – its most primary role – bringing the Sacraments to the faithful. Protestants usually have a rather different, non-sacramental view of ecclesiology. But in any case it is a valid point that the Church’s job is actually limited and many problems are left for laymen to solve, and when laymen fall down on their obligation the Church doesn’t have a special charism to step in and fix it. In the Catholic Church it is the man and woman who sacramentally marry each other: the Church is just a witness to it.

    But that can be way overstated. At the very least the Churches shouldn’t be undermining marriage and family, and Dalrock’s criticisms on that front frequently hit their mark.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    A lot of the advice these bloggers give is tremendously more valuable on the “nuts and bolts” of how to interact with women than what comes from mainstream social conservatives and Christians.

    Mike T,

    I agree wholeheartedly – on this particular point, you are preaching to the choir.

    I agree that the Manosphere does contain important information that is very, very hard to find elsewhere (I am probably a “mano-sympathizer,” to coin a term), and therein lies both its appeal and its danger. The problem is that these extremely important truths are then commingled with falsehoods, and it becomes very, very difficult to separate the truths from the falsehoods–particularly in the realm of morality. The hijacking of the truths by a sinister, anti-Christian moral agenda is incredibly obvious to someone looking from the outside. Those caught within, however, who are so entranced by the fact that they are finally among people who “get it,” simply overlook these uncomfortable contradictions.

    This is how disinformation and propoganda work – you take a large dose of compelling truth and mix it in with a few misleading falsehoods. People are then presented with the entire package, and told, in effect, if you don’t accept all of this you obviously don’t “get it.” You aren’t “one of us,” the “enlightened ones” who have “taken the red pill.”

    I have reached the conclusion, through much observation and study, that the Manosphere has cult-like tendencies and characteristics. It is obviously not a “cult” in the proper sense of the word – for one it is widely dispersed, and with no official heirarchy. But the cult dynamics present again and again, at least to this trained mind that has studied the methods of cult indoctrination.

    Disinformation always comes packaged in an outwardly attractive wrapper.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    My biggest grievance with the manosphere and MRM has always been that most of them are just the male version of gender feminist radicals. They are incapable of acknowledging that most of the things they are rightfully upset about are distinctly Western, if not American, problems. Women as a group are not inherently as bad as so many American women are. It is not a gender thing, it’s a culture issue with gender components.

    Again we are in agreement.

    I am well-read and well-schooled in the study of feminism, meaning I have read the actual source material, not just read what manos say about feminism. This is how I know feminism is a diverse movement. Back when I was doing this study, I used to take feminists to task, telling them in response to their claim “most men are sexist” that I didn’t believe misogyny existed in the West, except in very small pockets (in effect, NAMALT, but I used to say, “Most men are not like that.”)

    I told a friend recently that if I was still in touch with those feminists I would owe them an apology, because reading the Manosphere has opened my eyes to misogyny in a way I would never have anticipated. One of the benefits of reading the Manosphere is that I now actually understand what drove the “feminist rage” that used to perplex me so. Somehow I managed to skirt it all these years, or perhaps I just did not want to see it.

    As a Christian, however, I am obliged to view and treat all people, independent of gender, as individual moral agents, something neither feminists nor manos seem able to do.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    It’s also why men at the manosphere sites continually exhort women to be nice, pleasant, kind, be sexually available, learn to cook and clean, and be submissive

    There are men who have these things in real life, and who in turn give their wives what they need, but you won’t find many of them in the manosphere.

    Yes, Deti, these are desirable traits that you cite, but the whiny entitlement gimme-gimme-gimme mentality, not to mention the self-deception, of many manos seems to know no bounds. I have seen the very men who ask for the things you cite above turn around, sometimes in the same thread, and categorically disrespect, quite graphically (I won’t link here, but I have cut and pasted some of the more stomach-churning stuff), the entire female gender.

    These men are very vocal about what *they* want from women, but in return offer nothing except total disrespect, yet they somehow cling to the illusion that they are such prizes. No wonder so many of them are miserable in either their singlehood or in their marriages. They then rationalize that the fact that they aren’t getting what they most want is the fault of women (who are all “solipsists” by nature, incapable of ethical reasoning or rational thought, of course) and “feminism.”

    What right-thinking, feminine female would want to align herself with such a solipsistic, non-self-aware, adolescent-minded moron?

  • deti says:

    Anonymous1:

    “Deti etc. can be the first joiners of this new denomination. It will be interesting to watch as it unfolds.

    The macho posturing in the Manosphere has little or nothing to do with real masculinity. True masculinity is rare. Dalrock and his macho confreres would cr*p in their Fruit of the Loom briefs if they ever encountered a genuinely masculine male (what I refer to as a “White Knight Alpha Wolf”).”

    OK, Anon1. Since you called me out, be prepared to defend yourself and your views. I’ll now call you out.

    What, specifically, are you doing to teach men about their natures and the nature of women? What, specifically, are you doing to remedy the problems you acknowledge exist between men and women? Because the way I see it, if you’re not out there learning and imparting your knowledge to other men, you’re part of the problem, not the solution.

    “I appreciate both Deti and Dalrock in many ways, but I am sick to death of their hypocrisy, the way they are both being manipulated and used, and the damage it is doing in the name of the Gospel.”

    Interesting that I’m grouped in with Dalrock. I consider that high praise indeed. Anyway, how am I a hypocrite? Be specific. How am I being manipulated and used? What damage have I done in the name of the Gospel? Be specific in your responses and be prepared to cite specific examples. Will you also call out Vox Day, noted Christian believer, Game proponent, and Game theorist?

    If you, Anon1, are not teaching men of the evils of feminism, then you’re a hypocrite.

    So I would crap in my tighty whiteys on seeing a “real man”, a “white knight wolf alpha”. What are the characteristics of a “white knight wolf alpha”? Please describe such a creature, and be specific.

    Gird your loins, Anon1.

  • Zippy says:

    Anonymous1:
    I would prefer that we stick to discussion of ideas.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Anonymous1 you sum up succinctly my own thoughts here. Even Svar a young man of 19 can see staraight through him

    Dalrock is indeed a hypocrite.

    I too have wondered how he could allow such unchristian commentary on his blog when he purports to be a happily married ( christian) father.

    Katmandutu,

    Thanks for your response. The anecdote about Dalrock is quite interesting, and confirms my suspicions.

    It is heartening and affirming to know that we see the same things. And we cannot “unsee” what we have both seen.

    I also began to wonder what his wife must think(perhaps she is not a christian) about allowing such hateful things about women in general.

    I too have wondered the same thing. Does she actually read his blog or even know of its existence?

    I will say this about Deti – unlike Dalrock (from whom I have, I admit, learned a lot, especially about the dynamics in the mainstream church), he has posted very poignantly about some of the struggles in his own marriage, including his efforts to implement Red Pill in order to strengthen his family. There is a pathos and humility to some of Deti’s post that makes me like him, despite my many reservations. I sense that Deti struggles internally with many issues. Dalrock, by contrast, just comes across as a smug and arrogant hypocrite.

  • deti says:

    Zippy, Anon1:

    Anon1 called me out by name. If he/she/it felt confident enough to do so, then he/she/it should be able to defend that viewpoint. If Anon1 can’t defend it, then it should be retracted.

    I want an explanation: How specifically am I a hypocrite? How am I being used and manipulated? What damage have I done in the name of the Gospel?

    Be men about it. Be adults about it. Explain it or retract it.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    I would prefer that we stick to discussion of ideas.

    Could you point out specifically where I departed from the discussion of ideas? Thanks.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Happy to engage with you Deti, but I await specific instructions from the blogmaster, who has expressed some displeasure with my behavior on his lawn.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy

    First, I’ve encountered that idea in numerous places, and just used Google to get a quick reference to one.

    For the record, let me point out that not only was the comment not made by me, but it was offered as a direct disagreement to my post. The thesis of my post where the comment occured was that women are capable of experiencing reciprocal love and attraction. This was a commenter telling me “No, you are wrong”. I don’t recall whether or not I followed up telling that commenter “You are wrong when you state that I’m wrong”, but either way it should go without saying that this is my position.

  • Zippy says:

    Anonymous1:
    Deti is right: the comment he quotes from you is ridiculous:

    “Deti etc. can be the first joiners of this new denomination. It will be interesting to watch as it unfolds.

    The macho posturing in the Manosphere has little or nothing to do with real masculinity. True masculinity is rare. Dalrock and his macho confreres would cr*p in their Fruit of the Loom briefs if they ever encountered a genuinely masculine male (what I refer to as a “White Knight Alpha Wolf”).”

    Give me a break.

    He has every right to respond to you; but I am quickly becoming inclined to just block your posts.

  • Anonymous1 says:

    Zippy,

    No problem – it’s your lawn. I’m gone.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    For the record, let me point out that not only was the comment not made by me, but it was offered as a direct disagreement to my post.

    Yes, I get that. The original material as I understand it comes from the manosphere blog In Mala Fide, now defunct but archived. I don’t equate your personal positions to “the manosphere”.

  • Dalrock says:

    @katmandutu (Kathy)
    I also began to wonder what his wife must think(perhaps she is not a christian) about allowing such hateful things about women in general.

    I try to avoid making these kinds of discussions about my wife, but this comment caught my eye on the way out and made me chuckle. My wife is Christian and supports the blog, but does at times chastise me for going too easy on the sluts. She has never been a defender of sluts though, and before I started blogging I was unaware of how uncommon this made her as a Christian woman.

  • deti says:

    Anon1:

    “I will say this about Deti – unlike Dalrock (from whom I have, I admit, learned a lot, especially about the dynamics in the mainstream church), he has posted very poignantly about some of the struggles in his own marriage, including his efforts to implement Red Pill in order to strengthen his family. There is a pathos and humility to some of Deti’s post that makes me like him, despite my many reservations. I sense that Deti struggles internally with many issues. Dalrock, by contrast, just comes across as a smug and arrogant hypocrite.”

    I don’t share all of Dalrock’s views, nor he mine, but it’s no secret I agree with him on many things. That said, I tend to be more forthcoming with my personal info while Dalrock tends more to the abstract and theory. If you can’t see that Dalrock struggles and grapples with concepts, then you’re not reading carefully enough.

    There’s an overarching sense that my discussions with, and acknowledgement of, PUAs, indicates my agreement with and condonation of their lifestyles. This is false. Their lifestyles are not consistent with Biblical teachings. That said, at least PUAs are honest about their wants and goals (unlimited sex with no marriage) and who they serve (themselves). Much of the church is not so honest — claming to teach “biblical submission” when it does no such thing, constructing entire false theologies to support scriptural views which advantage women while hamstringing, sandbagging and disadvantaging men; and endless carping at men to “man up” while giving them no reason whatsoever to do so.

    It’s a crying shame that a mid-level paper pusher for a federal bureaucracy, a dude from Dallas and a former microbiologist turned sex tourist with a funny name know more about female nature than the foremost Christian thinkers and theologians of our day.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    Yes, I get that. The original material as I understand it comes from the manosphere blog In Mala Fide, now defunct but archived. I don’t equate your personal positions to “the manosphere”.

    Yes, I should have made clear that I understood that. I meant it for the larger record. One of my pet peeves is when people accuse me of something based on the writings of others. Put simply, I make my own case and allow the commenters the opportunity to in my view be wrong (or perhaps teach me something I hadn’t considered). YBM for example stated on the thread at my site:

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

    Right after I read that I got a report from WordPress (seriously) suggesting I write YBM a thank you note for being one of the top 5 most frequent commenters to my site in 2012. The same will likely be true for 2013, but I’ll have to ask him at the next compound meeting.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    I’ll bring the beer.

  • Ybm says:

    Ha, good timing! I’m not into personal flame wars on other people’s blogs, like some people, so this will be the only reply you will get:

    You really are a sensitive little thing aren’t you? Indeed when I was one of your brainless sycophants like the white nationalists, rape apologists, cuckold fetishists, or game cultists I indeed commented on your site. Few comments were made since mid year however, and much of the prior period can be more attributed to boredom than analysis.

    But don’t let that stop you, stamp your feet a little bit more about the bad man who says mean things. How very……beta. I’m sure if I had a publicly accessible blog you would write a lengthy screed inviting an invasion, just like you did to zippy, and alte before that, and Sheila before that, and Susan Walsh….. And on and on and on.

    Fortunately there are fewer and fewer roissyites every day, and the only ones left are a coalition of failed pua, white nationalists, a laughably inept group of “lifestyle blogs” peddling ebooks, and a conspiracy theorist.

  • Zippy says:

    YBM:
    I’m sure if I had a publicly accessible blog you would write a lengthy screed inviting an invasion, just like you did to zippy, …

    I don’t mind the invasion (I’m a semi-retired multimillionaire hunky handyman after all), or all the concomitant insults and remote psychologizing or whatever. The latter make my point for me.

  • katmandutu says:

    “But don’t let that stop you, stamp your feet a little bit more about the bad man who says mean things. How very……beta. I’m sure if I had a publicly accessible blog you would write a lengthy screed inviting an invasion, just like you did to zippy, and alte before that, and Sheila before that, and Susan Walsh….. And on and on”

    Yes ybm. The screed against Susan Walsh was a particularly nasty one. Taking a comment she made(out of context) in her own comments section on her own blog and making a post out of it encouraging all the Dalrock acolytes to come out and savage her was particularly poor form.
    Susan Walsh is a very pleasant and amiable blogger who engages in open and honest debate. She encourages civility at her own blog. You will not see vilification or character assasinations on her blog.

    Why Dalrock has such an axe to grind against women, in general is certainly puzzling. The self proclaimed happily married father tag , even more so.
    If he is happily married why is he spending so much time involved with his blog. It has huge traffic, unlike many others.(perhaps there is a clue in that. ;) )

    I know other happily married male bloggers with families (slumlord is one) who with work and family life, just don’t have a lot of spare time left to blog at the level Dalrock does…He’s a prolific commenter as well..

    Something does not add up here.

  • Dalrock says:

    @katmandutu (Kathy)
    Yes ybm. The screed against Susan Walsh was a particularly nasty one. Taking a comment she made(out of context) in her own comments section on her own blog and making a post out of it encouraging all the Dalrock acolytes to come out and savage her was particularly poor form.

    This is great stuff. Those who want to see the nasty screed in question can see it here: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/is-frivolous-divorce-overstated-in-the-manosphere/

    But I should warn you in advance; it contains charts, graphs, links to a scientific paper and a study by the AARP, and ends with the following diabolical note subliminally encouraging my readers to savage Susan:

    Note: As I’ve stated previously, I respect Susan as a blogger. I think she is in error on this issue and I have backed my position up. This isn’t an invitation for commenters to attack Susan personally, or to engage in “Lets you and her fight”. Feel free however to disagree with either Susan’s or my own position and make your own case.

    Not for the feint of heart, I know.

    For extra points, I highly encourage searching the comments for those YBM left to Susan. He was probably the worst one there attacking both her and katmandutu (back when she went by Kathy). Let my detractors note the healing power a united hatred of me can unleash. They were worst enemies and now are close friends. I am truly glad to be of service.

    All of this does leave me wondering though. This seems to have been used to build a legend of Dalrock the terrible, and perhaps this is what caused other bloggers freak out when I or my readers show up, even when they initiated the post. Darwin Catholic’s response to GK Chesterton comes to mind. Somehow the actual exchange has been magnified beyond all proportion. Rumors can make the mind run wild, but read the actual post and I think you will laugh.

    My worst offense in the infamous post was tossing Susan’s “provide stats or shut up” comment back at her. However, this wasn’t what incensed Susan so much. Her chief complaint was that I had misinterpreted her statement that Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber. to mean that she thought frivolous divorce was being overblown in the manosphere. In reality, it turns out by “manosphere echo chamber” she quite obviously meant one specific commenter on her site by the name of Doug1. While I accurately attributed her comment as a response to Doug1 in the post, I was guilty in Susan’s mind of somehow twisting her words in this way.

    But don’t take my word for it. See for yourself.

  • katmandutu says:

    Do yourself and your family a huge favor Dalrock. Spend more time with them.

    A good family is what truly matters in this life.

    Blogs come and go.. In the scheme of things they are inconsequential. All 181 million of them.

  • They are incapable of acknowledging that most of the things they are rightfully upset about are distinctly Western, if not American, problems. Women as a group are not inherently as bad as so many American women are. It is not a gender thing, it’s a culture issue with gender components.

    Eh, more/less. I agree there is a magnification in the anglosphere, which is odd but real, and not just because of language nuances.

    If it began as a cultural thing, it has become a gender thing because there is something receptive among the female gender to certain strains of thought. There are absolutely valid gender generalities and proclivities assignable to men and women. The cultural aspect comes in when men address our proclivities with accountability, and we coddle women, women coddle women, and no one is left to hold them accountable.

    Check the ministry Dalrock writes about yesterday , J and K, and see that all they had to do was dangle the bait and women came flocking to them and to similar outreach. Then note that the evangelical churches dangle the same bait, its just covered in a veneer so it doesnt look so wormy, and the women flock to it.

    its complicated, this separating out culture and gender but those thwo things are not meant to be examined on the same plane. Culture is a higher view than gender hierarchically.

  • Zippy says:

    I’ve added an update to the bottom of this post.

  • deti says:

    Dalrock:

    Kathy Katmandutu just can’t quit you. She also just can’t accept that men and women perceive things differently, and that observing facts and their effects doesn’t mean one is an inveterate hypocrite.

  • anonlurker2013 says:

    Zippy Catholic, brother in Christ Jesus,

    I would be most grateful if in you rcharity you would allow this off-topic post.

    Katmandu (Kathy), Sister in Christ,

    Would you be kind enough to contact me directly at anonlurker2013 at yahoo.com ?

    Thank you

  • [...] deleterious effects[1]: first, that women-qua-women are being seen as the enemy and second, that a cynicism which is disconnected from reality[3] is sometimes [...]

  • [...] feelings, extend the benefit of the doubt, or avoid possible harm to other’s relationships. Unlike Zippy, at a certain point I believe I can make statements about the psychology of people based on their [...]

  • [...] And shouldn’t the churches be way out in front on this, instead of playing catchup to some dude from Dallas and a mid-level government bureaucrat living in D.C.? – [Commenter Deti] [...]

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

What’s this?

You are currently reading Cynicism: the starry-eyed idealism of the nihilist at Zippy Catholic.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 165 other followers