It’s amazing how daintily some manosphere dudes dance around the word “misogyny.”After spewing forth venomous woman-hating filth in post after post, they turn around and equally vociferously deny that they are in any way misogynistic – after all, they can think of three or four women in their life they don’t actively hate.
It’s strange. Men whose entire political and social philosophy is based on the hatred of women aren’t willing to say this out loud.
Over on Hawaiian Libertarian, a blog with some influence within the marginal universe of the manosphere, Keoni Galt is a bit more honest: he is proudly and openly misogynist. Not only that, but he’s convinced that others in the manosphere need to fully accept misogyny into their shrunken little hearts. And he’s written a little manifesto about it:
Misogyny is the key to male liberation from blue pill delusions. Only by embracing it, can men adopt a new paradigm in which the female of the human species has forever been knocked off of the pedestal that had been erected in our minds by institutionalized brainwashing and mass media programming.
Galt starts out with a fairly standard-issue manosphere confessional. Turns out that before he saw the light – sorry, took the red pill — he was a poor female-besotted white-knight mangina like most of the unlucky males of this world:
Back in the blue pill days, I was enchanted and mesmerized by the female gender as a whole. Tell-a-Vision and a childhood steeped in Churchianity had me forever looking at the female gender as the only bright light in a world of shit. I was indoctrinated into becoming a worshiper at the feet of the pedestal of the “sacred feminine.”
The last thing I ever wanted to become, was a misogynist. No, I bought into the delusion that the key to being accepted and gain the approval of the female herd was to become the vaunted WhiteKnight-EmotionalTampon- InTouchWithMyFeelings- LJBF-NICE GUY.
Oh dear, we have to listen to the sad, boring tale of the Nice Guy once again.
All a woman…ANY woman (not just young, attractive ones)…had to do when I was younger, was smile at me or give me a pathetic pleading look, or a nice sounding request and I was ready to do her bidding. The bat of an eyelash or a supplicating sound of her voice had me ready to ask her “how high would you like me to jump?”
I helped ladies move, “lent” them money (never asked for it back, mostly never got paid back either), given them rides, helped them with homework, built them things, fixed their cars, bought them drinks and/or meals…anything any female in my life requested, I did. “NO” was not a part of my vocabulary when it came to dealing with the opposite gender.
Helping friends isn’t a character flaw. But you’re the one who made yourself into a doormat.
I also spent many a time with groups of female friends, joining in on the “all men are pigs” type of conversations. I’ve been that “one of the girls” guy on many an occasion. (“You’re so COOL! Why can’t more guys be like YOU?!”
But, Galt assures us, he wasn’t one of those passive-aggressive, guilt-tripping dudes who tries to “nice guy” his crushes into bed.
I’m not talking about being the “nice guy” here in hopes of getting a romantic response from a particular female. These are women for whom I knew as friends, acquaintances, co-workers, colleagues etc. In other words, if it had a vagina, I said “yes dear” to any and every request, simply to live up to the expectations inculcated in my mind on how a “good man” is one who serves the feminine imperative.
My indoctrination and upbringing had trained me to seek feminine approval above anything else.
What the hell kind of “indoctrination” did you get? Did you grow up in some sort of Goddess Cult? I’ve never met a single other person who’s been “indoctrinated” in this fashion. It’s almost as though you’re exaggerating or just making shit up in such a way as to justify your present-day misogyny.
Oh, wait, you are:
I’ve come to the realization that misogyny is the inevitable antidote one must accept, after gaining an understanding of the ugly truth of the female imperative and how it works to enslave men for it’s own purpose.
Yes, the only two options for men in the contemporary world – the only two — are to either bend over backwards and do everything women ask them to do in a creepily self-abasing way while agreeing that “all men are pigs,” or to decide that women are shit. (It’s not like this is a logical fallacy or anything.)
Most women nowadays really are beneath contempt. Manipulative, conniving, self-centered and solipsistic…especially beautiful ones.
[citation needed]
I now understand that this is the result of the programming most females are inculcated with from the same mass media culture that programmed me to be a pedestal worshiper.
[citation needed]
Actually, ALL women are solipsistic and manipulative to a certain degree (AWALT). It is their very nature. The real problem is that our mass media culture encourages women to embrace it, revel in it, and use their power of attraction to manipulate for their own selfish ends. It has always been like this, I just never recognized it until the hindsight as seen through the clarity of understanding that came with taking the red pill.
You realize that what you call the “red pill” is just a slightly exaggerated and updated version of not-so-good old fashioned misogyny, which has been around since the beginnings of civilization if not earlier?
But one thing this misogynist will admit: Not all women are like that. Really. I know a few.
Dude, dude, you just literally said that ALL women ARE like that. Like, in the paragraph you just finished writing.
These are women who understand that the true path to happiness is creating a sphere of nurturing and contentment amongst her friends and family. Such women are a literal joy to be around. There contentment is infectious.
“There contentment?” If these women truly loved you, wouldn’t they help you proofread your drivel?
But for most women I meet, my baseline assumption is that they are contemptuous creatures not worthy of anything other than basic human consideration…unless and until they prove otherwise.
Well, my baseline assumption is that the dudes of the manosphere are a bunch of pompous douchenozzles. And so far, I’m not altogether happy to report, not one has provided even a shred of evidence suggesting otherwise.
ACC: Re-read and find a great deal of concern trolling and passive aggressive bullshit which is inherently dishonest.
It’s not the best of practice, but it’s not hiding her beliefs. It’s also not as if the passive-aggressive hostility hasn’t been called out. But her basic hostility isn’t being hidden. She says she things we’re wrong; unlike some who come in and pretend to being sympathetic.
Can we have your assurance that “editing” in this case doesn’t mean “cutting out any of the responses that don’t fit my predetermined agenda”?
no. i hope it does. i want this nonsense to be as fake and contrived as possible.
not that i expect anything less from tom
Gosh, I thought she/he was a concern troll. Even the weird lack of contractions in his/her posts made me think of ham-fisted play acting (though not as entertaining as Wil the Confused). And do meek Chistian women regularly go into feminist friendly spaces (assuming they could name any) and start shit? Where’s the Christain love? And the Bible references were all half-assed.
The posts boiled down to “women should do whatever their husbands want….oh, and all women are incubators.” We’ve all heard that from MRAs before. I assumed the troll wanted to see how people would respond to the same message if it came from a church lady…..the kind who wishes people a blessed night before going to bed. Pffft.
I don’t have that particular study, but this article does a great job explaining the flaws in studies that claim DV is 50/50. It also has sources at the end from the WHO, FBI, and CDC. If you show this data to MRA’s, they will just dismiss it as having a “feminist bias”. /eyeroll
I’m really not surprised by anything MarySunshine wrote. The women that go far into fundamentalist Christianity and Quiverfull think feminism is the root of all evil. Those churches drill that message into girls and women all the time. I think they do that because feminism is such a threat to keeping women subservient and willing to have dozens of babies. Feminists are the ones saying “Hey, women have other options in life besides being a man’s helpmeet/servant, and women should be allowed to find happiness outside of the home if they wish”. It takes a lot of indoctrination to counter that.
I really wonder how she would react to know that women can even be SAHM’s and feminists. Now I really some feminists would say the two are incompatible, but I disagree. If someone thinks that makes me a “choose my choice feminist” then so be it, but I believe that as long as the person says all genders are equal and wants equal rights for everyone, then they are a real feminist.
oops, that should say “Now I know” not “Now I really”. I took some sinus medicine that is making my mind a bit cloudy.
“Choose my choice feminist”? Not heard that before. What does it mean?
(Since freedom of choice is a major goal of feminism as I understand it, the answer may cause me to facepalm.)
Thanks, bionicmommy! I will hunt around some more today. Just trying to educate myself a bit more on this.
There’s a lot to this, so bear with me. I’ll explain the two opposite views on this. There are a few people that claim that anything a woman does is feminist as long as it makes her happy. This can’t be true, because some women are happy doing things that go against what most feminists believe. For example, if a woman protests outside of abortion clinics, she might call herself a feminist but most feminists would say that she is not. If any woman can call her choice a feminist choice, then the word really has no meaning. What if someone has conservative views on most issues, always votes for Republicans, but calls hirself a liberal? Then liberal really doesn’t mean anything.
On the other hand, some feminists make up all sorts of rules on what makes someone a real feminist or not. For example, they may say that if a woman chooses to be wear makeup, change her name after marrying, or be a SAHM, then she is not a real feminist. They call them “choose my choice feminists”. I’ve seen a lot of this at feministe lately, and it comes across as self righteous and annoying to me.
I really don’t know where exactly to draw a line on who gets to call themselves a feminist or not. I just judge it on a case by case basis. For me, it’s more important that the person opposes oppression than if the person wants to shave their legs or not.
I think, based on my experience with others, that she is trying to “share her testimony”.
The problem is she doesn’t know how. To truly make evangelism work (no matter what the issue) one has to make it seem worthwhile in some way. The MRM does it by presenting a rationale for why men aren’t getting what they want (feminism has ruined it… as soon as those feminist bitches are put in their place, the world will be hunky-dory again and you will be on top).
It’s not a case of the message being “true” but of it being plausible. That’s how one does it on the internet. In real life one shows how one’s life has actually improved.
sunshinemary doesn’t have that. What she has is a set of rules, and the assertion that it’s “what God wants”. But she’s begging the question because “what God wants” isn’t knowable.
What the Bible means isn’t obvious (if it were, there would be no sects), and it’s not able to bootstrap proof.
So she has an improbable task; almost impossible. Those who are inclined to believe her, aren’t the ones who are likely to be posting here, and the people who do post here aren’t fools. Some of us are well versed in the verses she wants to use, and are going to shred her interpretations. Others are hostile to the concepts she is trying to use.
And I don’t think any of the regulars is in agreement with the results she gets. So she’s not going to get public acceptance. And at that level, she is being dishonest. if that is what she is doing, she is wasting her testimony. She is playing martyr, which is dishonest.
So yeah, I was probably wrong, and, on further reflection she is probably acting in bad faith.
I tend to assume the best in people.
Was I the only one who read the title phrase and translated it as “I don’t need V*agra anymore: women-hate keeps my dick hard! UNF UNF UNF”
pecunium’s gospel to manbooz.
Let us pray.
Hello, just a quick comment…I did not “flounce” last night; I truly have a lot of children and needed to put some of them to bed.
Perhaps I did not do a sufficient job of explaining what it means for a Christian woman to submit to her husband’s leadership. I noticed today that one of my favorite blog’s latest post concerns why men were given the authority and responsibility of leading. I think it would be bad etiquette to post the link since I am an unknown newcomer here, but the name of the blog is Christian Men’s Defense Network if anyone would care to read it.
nobody wants to read christian men’s defense network, that just sounds creepy and gross, but you’re always free to post whatever links you want. it’s extremely hard to be off topic here, as long as you dont link spam
I think the settled odds were standing at about fifty-fifty on your return.
Odds on you being actually willing to engage with any argument we present; about two to one against.
But surprise us.
what i’d really like to know is why you ‘obviously’ cant comment on homosexual relationships.
An excerpt from the article at CMDN:
“But male culture is more complex than female culture: Men hold each other accountable, while women give each other affirmation. If a man’s behavior or attitude undermines the community, other men hold him accountable, to the point of even usurping his leadership role. If a woman is engaged in patently immoral behavior–cheating on her husband for instance–other women engage in vicarious rationalization for her. ”
Cause if we all know one self-evident truth it is that guys always hold one another accountable. The MRA is a shinning example of that. Yes siree…..
…and that’s why the male-dominated world of finance and CEOs has never, ever created a global financial… um…
😛
Oh. My. Goodness. It gets even BETTER.
Apparently men need to take leadership roles because a woman’s worldview is one that is comprised of nothing but egotistical pleasure seeking:
===========
But always there is the temptation to return to the world of woman, to focus on his own selfish desires to the detriment of those around him. And so, when we instruct a man to give up his own selfishness and sacrifice for the well-being of those around him, we tell him to “man up” or “be a man.” We never tell him to “tingle up” or “be a chick.”
And that tells us a bit about women. Their temptation is towards believing all of life should be centered on them, that everyone else should give them what they desire, specifically because they desire it.
=============
If you agree with this type of article Mary, I can only guess that you are either really selfish and assume that trait must be spot on for all females (newsflash: it isn’t) or are so self-loathing that I can’t even fathom where your head is at. Either way it’s pretty damn scary.
It’s really hard for me not to jump in here and start frothing at the mouth about the Bible. I’m good at it, too… trained and studied to be a fundie preacher. I can out-fundie the most fundamental fundie in the room.
And in the end it was the Bible that made me give up on the Bible. So, you know, tempting.
But danged if Pecunium doesn’t have some earth-shatteringly good stuff already in, so it would just feel like a pile-on.
So I’ll just stay over here and point and laugh.
If one of my friends started cheating on her husband, I would probably ask her “Are you sure you realize the risks you’re taking and what you could lose?” If she insisted upon her decision, I would just leave it alone. It’s not my business what other people do in their marriage. I wouldn’t rationalize anything. Some people want to take the “tough love” approach and others want to tell their friends what they want to hear. I just want to stay out of it. None of this is gendered in any way, either. I think it’s more about personality types how someone would respond to that kind of scenario.
I’m kinda wondering that myself. All the lady + lady couples I know are actually a lot more religious than me and my bf, and are members of Christian churches that aren’t in the practice of telling them they are terrible people for the “sin” of loving each other. Saying you can’t comment, because, Christian, is a pretty lazy response.
thebionicmommy:
Thanks for the explanation! Not quite hitting the facepalm threshold there, and I think I’m pretty much in agreement with you.
My inclination would be to draw the line between how someone lives their personal life and their actions to do with how other people live their lives. Being a stay-at-home mother is fine in my book; arguing that all women should be, or should want to, or whatever, isn’t.
Essentially I think I’m supporting freedom of choice limited by not infringing on other people’s freedom of choice here.
Any flaws in this that I’ve missed?
wow that is actually creepier & grosser than i would have guessed!
So, men never engage in “vicarious rationalizations” when they hear about other men cheating on their wives? Not ever?
At best that’s painfully naive. At worst it’s bald-faced lie.