>
The video above, which has been making the rounds of the manosphere, is one of the creepiest and most off-putting things I’ve seen since watching Dogtooth a couple of weeks ago. Actually, I take that back: Dogtooth was much less creepy and off-putting. I was so repelled by what I saw in this video that it literally took me several tries to get through the whole thing. And no, it’s not some weird misogynistic rant by the likes of Bernard Chapin. Oh, no no no. The misogynists of the world are as repelled by the video as I am, though for radically different reasons. Titled “Dear Woman,” the video was actually put together by a couple of self-described “conscious men” who think they’re doing a great favor to the women of the world.
To which I can only say: Guys, stop it, you’re not helping.
If you can stomach it, the video is worth watching in its entirety. If not, here’s what you’re missing: The video is the work of a couple of New Age gurus — Arjuna Ardagh and Gay Hendricks, Ph.D – who, with the help of a little gaggle of guys, have written a little manifesto “apologizing” to the women of the world for all the bad shit done by men to women over the centuries. Or, as they put it:
I feel deep love, great respect and a growing sense of worship for the gifts of the feminine. I also feel deep sorrow about the destructive actions of the unconscious masculine in the past and present. I want to apologize to you and make amends for those actions, in order to bring forth a new era of co-creation with you.
The first step in “making amends,” evidently, was to gather together a group of men – some of whom seem to have been roped into it in the middle of a garden party — and to somehow convince them to read out loud the entire text of this manifesto. (The full text is here, but it’s much creepier when it’s read out loud.)
There is something about this manifesto, and the men reading it, that is so “off” that it may well make your skin crawl, and make you wonder how many of the men in the video have dead bodies secreted away in the crawl spaces under their homes. A female friend I showed the video to could only make it through the first couple of minutes before switching it off in horror; one commenter on Metafilter reported that it “made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, and not in a good way. Eeew.”
The creepyist, skin-crawliest part of the video has to be the section in which the assembled men talk about women’s bodies:
I honor the beauty and integrity of your body. When we worship each other through our bodies with awareness and devotion, there are no boundaries to the love that we can generate. I feel sorrow that men have used your beauty as a form of commerce in prostitution and pornography. In the grip of lust we have often lacked the skills to ask gracefully for intimacy or to take ‘No’ for an answer. I take a stand against any form of enforced or soulless commercialization of woman’s beauty, and I respect that your body belongs to you. …
I honor your capacity to listen to your body and its needs for food, rest and playtime.
I feel confident that I speak for many when I say “ewww.” Somehow I’m reminded of Saturday Night Live’s hot-tub-loving “lovers.”
As one commenter on Metafilter put it:
“We worship women” sounds like something Buffalo Bill would have said if he had a PR agent. My guess is that they’re sickos who seem really earnest at first but it turns out that they’re actually trying to collect used tampons for onanistic purposes or something.
So what is it, aside from all this worshiping, that makes the video so creepy? Part of the problem is that these “conscious men” are, in their own way, as patronizing and sexist as any manosphere dudes “mansplaining” about how all women only want to fuck alpha guys. Women, in their view, are inherently peaceful earth-mother types. “I commit now to … honoring the spirituality of the divine feminine,” the guys tell us. “I honor your deep connection to the earth.”
From this day, moving forward, I vow to treat your heart as the sacred temple it is, and I commit to honoring the feminine in you and me and in my relationship to all life.
I know that by leaving the past behind and joining hands in the present, we can create a synergy of our strengths. Together, there is nothing we cannot do.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Your human ego deceives you. It's all a social construct right. Gender, society, gendered behavior, differences and interrelations are all a mailable social construct. I've heard it before. Listen David, my point is simply that we are not separate from the world around us. Human beings do not exist in a vacuum apart from other processes we see in the world around us. Human beings are animals whether you like to admit it or not. We are not Gods, we are not something special beyond our adaptive trait of intelligence. I don't think David's ego is the problem here.Your point previously was not that we're separate from the world around us, it was that women were kicking men out of the family (which they're not), then that men didn't have to be a part of the family if they don't want to (which they do, at least in a monetary sense), then that women's liberation was a competition.David never challenged that we were animals nor posited that we were special, you're putting words in his mouth.The fact that our social constructs are based on that trait of intelligence means that human behavioural studies must be conducted in a different way to most other animal behavioural studies: most human behaviour is learned, whereas to a large extent most animal behaviour is genetically determined. You can't apply the label "territorial behaviour" to everything a male does that's agressive as he may be doing it for a large array of reasons (stress, substance, hormonal imbalance due to puberty, peer pressure).My point is that we have a lot more in common with the world around us than not. My point is that we do not operate from Free Will alone and that despite what feminists will tell you there are real biological differences between male and female and different roles we play hence the existence of two genders to begin with. In fact I venture to say that men and women in many regards are opposites in every way. Despite what feminists believe we are supposed to be complimentary and operate in symbiosis. We are supposed to fit together like a glove. We are supposed to need each other. Believe me I have heard ENOUGH about "toxic masculinity". I had to sit through a semester of "women's studies" constantly being demeaned and denigrated for being male. Indeed there are differences but for the most part they are not really manifest, men and women these days are rarely at their biological peak. You are wrong in venturing that men and women in many regards are opposites in every way, men and women are very similar in many ways (very similar anatomy (genital differences and secondary sex characteristics aside), near-identical ways of learning, indistinguishable differences in cognitive capacity) and to say they are opposites is about as rational as saying "soap is for all intents and purposes identical to cheese".Feminism is also not about dividing the sexes, though I think I've covered that.
>There is a reason for this David: "After analyzing the imaging data for the entire group, the researchers found that the participants showed activation in the brain's mesocorticolimbic center, the region typically associated with reward and addiction. Male brains, however, showed much greater activation, and the amount of activation was correlated with how much territory they gained. (This wasn't the case with women.) Three structures within the reward circuit – the nucleus accumbens, amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex – were also shown to influence each other much more in men than in women. And the better connected this circuit was, the better males performed in the game." The findings indicate, the researchers said, that successfully acquiring territory in a computer game format is more rewarding for men than for women.As interesting as that is, cherry picking one study doesn't "prove" anything, nor does indicating that men are more territorial than women do much good for your point. I'm not aware of anyone here disputing that there are differences in how men and women operate, they just want women to be treated equally.If women don't like it they can go to their own land, acquire their own resources and leave men the hell alone. I will not tolerate misandrist bigotry pouring out of the mouths of women and their pseudo scientific bullshit courses that denigrate the masculine. It's worth noting that throughout your comments you've sounded fairly biased yourself. Note that no-one here is being misandrist or denigrating the masculine, they are commenting on mysogynistic events on the internet and deploring those mysogynists, not deploring men as a collective.Well none of you here speak the message of main stream gender feminism now do you. Am I angry yes I'm angry. I and many other men have the right to be. I think you'll find that almost everyone here speaks the message of mainstream feminism, actually. You seem to equate radical feminism with mainstream feminism. Why do you have the right to be angry, and what about? About feminism? About people supporting the right for women to be treated as social and legal equals? That seems like an illogical thing to be angry about, not to mention fairly rude, similar to being angry at a starving child for requesting food.You'll notice I've missed a few points but I'd appreciate it if you payed attention to what I have said not what I haven't; then go on to enquire as to a response to your other words, I've likely just missed them as it's getting late here.
>Women initiate 70% of divorceYeah, that's because women are more likely to be the victims of spousal abuse, so they have a hell of a lot more reason on average to get out of a marriage.@DavidHuh. I'm not gay at the moment. But after reading all this from Discount here I'm thinking of converting. Women sound terrible! I know. I used to love cupcakes but now I can't eat them because I'm afraid they'll bite me. 🙁
>@Discount, my BA is in philosophy, I considered going for a Ph.D., and I have written twenty page arguments on details of Frankfurt style counterexamples. The group of people who know more than me on this topic is a rather small one. Try again, assface. Note: Learning the meanings of words and concepts prior to using them could be helpful to you.@David, maybe you could come be gay with me, considering that Discount has made huge assumptions about my gender and suggested I fuck more guys. What's a trans masculine bisexual genderqueer to do, eh?
>Discount, if you actually believe half the BS you're writing, I'd suggest wrapping yourself in caution tape and carrying a megaphone around to warn women to stay as far away from you as possible."Don't worry, none of them would ever want to be with you because you would probably rape them, deprive them of rights and control over their own bodies, the fruits of its labor, and rob them of their children. Those men..like many know that they owe women, women's families and women's fatherless bastard children nothing."So, men don't have children or families, because women rob them of it? Sounds like somebody has a case of womb envy. You know, once we can get that incubator developed, you won't have to worry about women aborting babies you want to keep. Unless, you know, you're controlling and/or abusive and she honestly couldn't stomach the thought of you dealing with children. Then maybe you got a few more problems than an incubator can solve.And dudes, seriously, you have more control here than you realize. You have the right to refuse sex without protection. If the women forces herself on you anyway even after you make it clear that you don't want unprotected sex, it's rape. You can take it to court if you want. Also, if you do have protected sex, but she gets pregnant anyway and decides to keep the baby, you don't have to claim paternity (though if you're married, it's assumed that you're the father). Or at least, that seems to be the way it works in the United States.
>Discount-the only way you would be happy is if women were simultaneously subordinate to men and able to completely support themselves and any children that they only had with permission from you.Which is contradictory in of itself again. Also, accusing me of being a rapist is not very logical since I said I would not want to be anywhere near these men. If I was, why would I rape them? Try to actually use some kind of logic here.
>What's especially odd about these MGTOW guys is that the women they describe bear no resemblance to the women I actually know if my life–and I work in a profession that is comprised of at least 2/3 women. I don't know any female rapists (though I'm sure they exist). Virtually all of the women I know are employed and support themselves–sometimes making more money than their husbands/partners. I don't even know any women who truly want to make a go of family life without any male influence whatsoever. Even the lesbian couples whom I know have male friends and recognize the importance of having male role models for their children. It's almost as if the MGTOWers are projecting, or something.
>Okay, so taking into account Captain Bathrobe's last comment, let's consider some of the things MRAs in general appear to believe about reality:1) Everybody lives an upper-class lifestyle2) Wars only affect the soldiers who fight them3) Women think men have cooties4) Women are all housewivesSo it's official. MRAs have the worldview of a 6-year-old.
>1 in 4 women carry a disease, their cervix and wombs rot from their body while any sign of life is vacuumed out and thrown in the garbage.Per this comment, Trip, I would add:5) Girls do have cooties.6) Ladyparts are icky, except for making babies.I wouldn't be so unfair to 6 year-olds as to compare them to MRAs or MGTOWs, however.
>FWIW, my five year-old son plays with girls all the time.
>Geti, for some reason the spam filter grabbed a whole bunch of your comments. I let them through and they're all up now. Everyone else, especially Discount, I'd recommend scrolling up to see them.
>A natural born charmer eh CB?
>David, good to know, they seemed to be vanishing so I kept a backup but I'm relieved that they're up now.Glad you approve, keep doing what you're doing.
>Elizabeth said… A natural born charmer eh CB? April 11, 2011 3:59 PMApparently so. He now has a little friend whom he insists he's going to marry. He also has said that he intends to set a trap for her and keep her in a cage. This was the point where I felt obligated to step in and (after validating that he likes his friend very much) explain the voluntary nature of marriage in modern society. I'm not sure he was convinced. Fortunately, most 5 year-olds outgrow this sort of thing.
>"Go have your sex in the city lifestyles. 1 in 4 women carry a disease, their cervix and wombs rot from their body while any sign of life is vacuumed out and thrown in the garbage. Our marriage rates are at an historic low, fatherless bastard children at historic highs and our domestic birth rate below replacement levels. This is a demographic nightmare for any civilization and can not be maintained without immigration. "And at this point, Discount, I don't see how it could be any clearer that you define yourself by your hate. Deprived of it, I would not be surprised if you simply collapsed in upon yourself like an oil rig fire deprived of oxygen.
>Was that not the plot of Boxing Helen or whatever that movie was called?
>Deprived of it, I would not be surprised if you simply collapsed in upon yourself like an oil rig fire deprived of oxygen. And then he would sink and cause an open well to start spewing hundreds of millions of barrels of oil into the ocean?
>"And then he would sink and cause an open well to start spewing hundreds of millions of barrels of oil into the ocean?"Currently the only difference between this and the toxic crap he's all ready spewing is that the damage he's causing to the environment around him isn't as obvious.
>"The aim of feminism is also not to be put on a podium and idolised (that was the whole point of making this blog post as far as I can make out), or to be elevated and romanticised; it's to be made equal, legally and socially." What are you talking about??? Women have more "rights" "choices" "privileges" and dominance over the social, political, economic and over all resource distribution than men do. Most resources flow to women. They own 60% of the nations wealth, earn 60% of college degrees, have all the rights in marriage and thus divorce, are the only gender that has conception rights both pre and post conception, rights over the fruits of their labor and outearn men by an average of 8% in every major metro city in the U.S. They have better healthcare provided to them, better health in every measure, longer life span, are not required to serve their country by Selective Service OF ANY KIND, better educational opportunities through women first Affirmative Action and have ownership over men's bodies and the fruits of men's labor including owning children. Men are not even considered a necessary part of the process of conception. Male genes are sold through the mail according to what celebrity they look like. Men are not even considered a necessary part of the family. I have no idea what you are talking about!
>"if you sire a child and pack up and leave you're legally obliged to send money to go towards raising that child." Men don't pack up an leave in nearly the proportion that women do. Women initiate 70% of all divorce and of the 30% initiated by men few involve children. Women are the majority of those who abandon their families.
>"Or call men pigs, dogs, horses asses, jack ass donkeys and throw men into garbage cans."-"Be angry at the individual, not at the collective."If you haven't noticed the above portrayal of men IS the collective pop cultural expression toward men as you can see by the links I posted with the comment. The links are screenshots from Sony commercials, Roomba Robotics commercial and others. The commercials that display men this way are primarily aimed at appealing to women. There is a reason they validate women's view of men in these commercials…because it is true of women's view of men…it works….it sells.
>"Men have the God given natural right to be a part of their childrens lives. The goal of feminism was to create marriage 2.0 laws to absolve women of any liability, responsibility, commitment or reciprocal obligation to men and the sanctity of marriage. Feminists also seek to remove men's rights to our own bodies and the fruits of our labor and transfer such things to women by force." -"Wait, before you seemed to be stating that a man could pack up and leave whenever he liked and that the children were essentially the woman's property; which system are you an advocate of?" No I am referring to after the fact…when women abandon their family.
>"Women work less hours""-And get paid less per hour."No…the Raw Wage Gap is based on a measurement of the whole of the workforce and the disparity between what men and women produce as a whole of the labor market. "seek jobs out of a different modus of personal fulfillment (one which has little or nothing to do with appealing to the opposite sex)""-Why should anyone choose a career based on appealing to the opposite sex?" Don't play stupid.
>Discount, women *also* get paid less per hour, on average.
>"indistinguishable differences in cognitive capacity"No it is a proven fact that men are represented at the top and bottom of the dimorphic curve in broad spectrum IQ tests. This is due to hypergamous female preferences in sexual selection. The curve is proportional at the top and bottom. Feminists don't care about the bottom of the curve, those men can end up under a bridge like the 85% of street homeless men sleeping under bridges. They also seek to remove men from the top percentiles of representation by creating Affirmative Action and Title IX laws to forcefully remove men from these ares of representation. Here is the curve: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b0zTyfXcvvc/TVe_8sCyPDI/AAAAAAAAAhk/xxFgCkyxKI8/s1600/ScreenShot020.jpg There is more dimorphic variance between males in sexually selective traits for a reason. HELENA CRONIN: Philosopher, London School of Economics; director and founder Darwin@LSE; author, The Ant and the PeacockMore Dumbbells But MMore Nobels: Why men are at the top:http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin