Let’s zero in on that last paragraph. When I dipped my toes into the manosphere five years ago it was a largely a group of men looking to reassert their authority, take back what belongs to them, and not let the “little woman” get her way. This was attractive and something to support from the sidelines; just as men support revivals of femininity from the sidelines. Since that time, there has been a slow fade of men acquiescing to “let the little woman do it” philosophy. They like to talk about authority, about being leaders, but in the safe world of comboxes where postulating theories and hypotheticals seem to be equivalent to gaining real experience.
A Voice for Men (AVfM) is the best example of succumbing to the “let the little woman do it” philosophy. They even admit, “At this point there are far too many women involved in the men’s movement to list even a small fraction of them.” Doesn’t that just say all we need to know? Let the “little women” come in and take over. Note the use of “involved” rather than “support”–a subtle, but big difference. Women were brought in because of a feminized instilled fear of being seen as a “bunch of woman-hating men”. More from AVfM: “…whatever you’ve heard about how the Men’s Human Rights Movement is nothing but a bunch of woman-hating men and obedient servant women is a lie: we are a nonviolent human rights movement, welcome to everybody who shares our values.” What they really are is a “voice for humanity” with a faux masculine bravado where the women directly or indirectly call the shots. There is the saying, “Wolves don’t lose sleep over the opinions of sheep”. AVfM’s need to prove themselves to sheep (i.e. society, women) overtook them.
There are still wolves around in the manosphere but they keep to their own dens, ignore or are indifferent to the silly opinions of women, and especially don’t orbit or pedestal women. Bottom line- I support wolves, not worms. Women don’t want to support feminized men anymore than men want to support masculine women.
Exclaiming “You’re just jealous” to someone you don’t agree with is a long standing tactic, especially amongst women, to shut down debate and attempt to brush someone aside with one fell swoop. Clearly, if someone is jealous, what they say can’t possibly have any merit. Problem solved. Let’s just reframe the topic at hand to make it all about the person they disagree with and their alleged issues.
There is another trend surfacing that falls into the same “shut down debate” camp. That being, the exclamation “your obsessed with me” or “I don’t know why he/she is so obsessed with me”. The purpose here again is to distract the reader that its the other person who has a problem–they are obsessed, they are jealous. Again, reframe the debate.
Those who are deemed obsessed may really be those who observe, who have fine attention to detail and catch inconsistences that the opponent finds uncomfortable. What the person bringing obsessed charges is saying is “you look too closely to what I am saying and see through the BS. I don’t like that, I’m uncomfortable, so you must be made out to be crazed, obsessed person and snuffed out.”
I googled this new trend of “obsessed” accusations and lo and behold there is this clip from the 2005 movie Mean Girls:
Yup, so much can always be brought back to that film and also so much can always be brought back to my Feminization of Rhetoric post. Both tactics are most common amongst women because these are feminine debating styles, but feminized men are just as susceptible. What happens when women are allowed unrestrained in debate forums is a change of debating style to the feminine. The men don’t even realize this is happening because it is so slow and subtle over time. Men who resort to “you’re just jealous” and “you’re obsessed” are debating like Mean Girls, a far cry from the masculine rhetorical art of yesterday.
I am starting to shy away from using the term “anti-feminism” because of stuff like this:
Photo from womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com
The above reminded me of this post I wrote in 2009 about the push for “new feminism” as a better alternative to the commonly known Feminism that has been overplayed. It seems anti-feminism is quickly being promoted as a branch of this “new feminism”. Just subtle things I have been noticing here and there. I don’t say this to be negative or to suggest that all anti-feminists are feminists, but to try to stay ahead of the ever morphing evil spirit that is behind feminism.
Note: This is also making me rethink the title of my “Anti-Feminism University” series.
The last of the quotes Fulton Oursler clipped from an article in the The Lincoln Star, titled, “Women are Destroying Themselves” by Lillian Genn, 1935.
More quotes by Fulton Oursler clipped from an article in the The Lincoln Star, titled, “Women are Destroying Themselves” by Lillian Genn, 1935. I started to write some commentary, but as usual, these articles speak for themselves. Still more quotes to come.
This “all satisfying” love is dominance, guidance, protection. The lack of dominance in men, that women helped snuff out, has created an unspoken problem.
That piece of wisdom is taken from a 1935 article from the The Lincoln Star, titled, “Women are Destroying Themselves” by Lillian Genn, who extensively quotes Fulton Oursler. More to come.
In the book “A Lesser Life” by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, there is a chapter on the “male rebellion” that occurred in the 1950s and 60s in response to men getting fed up with being providers while their wives enjoyed charmed lives at home. A snippet from “Through all my Housework in an Hour”, Ladies Home Journal, October 1960, highlights the typical day of a 1950s housewife:
It is no wonder men would get upset with this and no doubt it is stories like this one that lead men to go their own way and reject the provider role. Some may say Mrs. Crabtree deserves such a leisurely life, after all she found a way to get all her chores done at lightening speed so that she could thereby maximize her fun. Clever lady! Do men get this same luxury? If they have a 9-5 desk job, no matter how hard and efficient they are at their job, they still have to sit there till 5:00. It is said, “a woman’s work is never done”, yet with the invention of modern appliances, it really is done (at least for that day) and quick too. It is the man’s work of providing that is never truly done.
Take this same story and transfer it to modern times. No longer do women hurry up and get all their chores done to play bridge, but rather to be online with blogs and facebook. Women who spend an inordinate amount of time online–are they really any different than Mrs. Crabtree? Instead of 9-3 playing cards, its 9-3 blogging and facebooking. It is one thing if chores are done efficiently to spend time with family, homeschool, to be out with their kids in the real world, but a completely other thing so that she can play cards, be online in the fake world, or go shopping and get her hair done with the girls.
Now, there is a footnote to this story that is interesting:
Mrs. Crabtree is no doubt an upper middle class snob, so its no wonder that other women, presumably the lower class ones, took issue with this as not an accurate portrayal of the struggles of the average housewife. While Mrs. Crabtree says she may be “too content”, at the same time woman across America were getting that stirring of the famous problem that has no name.
An excerpt from Sex with Kings by Eleanor Herman:
In the 1600s, “Memoirs became popular, though they must be read with care and compared with other documents of the period. Written with an aim of publication, many memoirs had the dual purpose of self-vindication and finger-pointing. Shortly before her death in 1615, Queen Marguerite of France wrote her memoirs to provide herself with a virtue as crisply white as parchment, throwing in numerous stories of her husband’s unseemly behavior with mistresses, though leaving out her own unseemly behavior with lovers.”
From the dawn of time till the present day, yes, all women are indeed “like that”. A common feminist lament is that men were the writers of history and women’s voices were lost in time, silenced by the patriarchy. This is just one example of a woman (albeit a Queen) who had a voice, but look at how she chose to share that voice, not only by trashing her king husband but also by putting herself on a pedestal at the same time, without disclosing her own sins. A win-win for both camps of feminism by killing two birds with one stone. The man-hating, down with patriarchy women get to see a perverted King’s name tarred and feathered (justice served) and the traditionalist, more refined, morally superior women get to see their sins erased and their symbolic queen status in tact. Overall, a score for “Team Woman” as women come out golden here for both camps.
Memoirs in general (think James Frey) and especially those told by women are useless and should be treated as fiction until proven beyond a doubt otherwise. While printed traditional memoirs are still around, the real modern day memoirs are blogs and social media. This is the platform modern women now use to tell and share their story, stories that can be told with “a virtue as crisply white as parchment” to create a pretty picture and perhaps subconsciously hide from her sins back in the real world. The more women talk and boast about how great they are online, the more of a win “Team Woman” gets. This could also be one reason women are so involved on facebook and blogging about their lives—to create an alter-ego of who they wish they were and how they want to be remembered even if it isn’t true. In a culture where women were raised up to have extreme self-esteem and to be extraordinary, the thought of passing from this earth as ordinary with an ordinary life is really a fate worse than death.
A further point for discussion–how exactly would history have been written if women did have the majority voice? If Queen Marguerite is any indication, it would be a history where women are superior, morally and otherwise, it would be a matriarchy. In the same spirit, how would society be remembered 100 years from now if all that remains are digital records of women’s social media accounts? A scary thought.
Not everyday you see a headline like this:
It suggests ‘intimate partner violence’ may not be motivated by patriarchal values, as previously thought
Study leader Dr Elizabeth Bates said: ‘The stereotypical popular view is still one of dominant control by men. That does occur but research over the last ten to 15 years has highlighted the fact that women are controlling and aggressive in relationships too.’
She said scientists may have to think again about the reasons for male violence against women, which previous studies said arose from ‘patriarchal values’ in which men are motivated to seek to control women’s behaviour, using violence if necessary.
Women controlling and aggressive? Ya don’t say! Any female who has been in the path of the “mean girls” and any male who has been ruined through a nasty divorce understands this very well. The interesting part is the presumption for a woman to be controlling and aggressive there must be a motivation or reason for it, like patriarchy. Someone or something must be causing her bitchiness when really she can just be a bitch by her own accord.
This inspired a question: Which is more harmful to society– the feminist meme that patriarchy and men are evil, oppressive, often violent brutes or the traditional Victorian meme that women are the gentler, refined, more moral sex? Of course both are no good, harmful misconceptions, but if had to pick only one. I can’t quite pinpoint it yet, but it seems the two work together.
The Motivation behind both is a deflection away from innate female nature. The feminist meme places the blame of women’s woes on men and deflects responsibility away from women. The traditional one doesn’t place blame on men, which is what gives it the appearance of being superior, but at the same time deflects and hides a woman’s innate nature from society and men. Both are trying to create enough distraction and hype, so that we all don’t deal with women and how they really are. Feminists are “don’t look at me, look at at that nasty man” and traditionalists are “look at me, not the real me, but my mask of genteelness, now how can I do anything wrong?”
Thoughts stemming from Dalrock’s post:
What do people really know about vows and commitments? What other events are there in life where you get to experience and get a taste for commitment before the serious commitment of marriage? I can’t think of any. There is nothing in childhood or young adulthood that you can’t just wiggle your way out of, jobs for example, college, buying a house, none of those are a commitment. College may appear as a 4 year commitment of time and money, but if you don’t do well or don’t like it, you can quit, society doesn’t care. A mortgage may appear as a 30 year commitment, but you can always sell or let it foreclose. Our lives are made of paper in every possible way. Coincidentally, college is the first “piece of paper” you collect in the paper trail of life. Next is the piece of paper of marriage and then you buy a house with even more pieces of paper. Eventually, your life is a house of cards with no foundation.
Based on prior life experiences, it seems people stumble into marriage having a dictionary definition of commitment, but not a practical definition and it fails. Commitment has been taught as something more fluid, where you set out with good intentions and that is all that matters.