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.
Somehow I doubt this experiment is going to be scientific at all.
Hypothesis confirmed.
Investigate some hair plugs.
“All these vids will be appearing soon on my sexismbusters youtube channel. ”
but alas, not a single fuck was to be given.
In all seriousness, fuck your shameless self promos. You riled people here purposely to peddle your bullshit documentary and shitty channel. I wish David would just delete your blatant advertising attempts. I hope you don’t even get a single view from here.
What are you shooting on?
I was going to post some topics for Tom to investigate, but he’s just too boring to think about. So, hey look, the kittens have a new setting to explore:
http://www.ustream.tv/sevenkittens
Although I can use context clues to kind of guess at what “wh*renography” means, I’m at a complete loss as to what “storenography” means.
And I’m not going to her website, so I shall have to sit and ponder on that for the rest of my life.
Okay … so you ask some people what they think about men and women.
And then you ask some other people what they think about men and women.
And then you put them all together and you publish them on YouTube and you sit back and rest on your laurels, and when we come along and watch it and then say, “okay, so what?” you’ll say “See? See?” like it’s perfectly obvious and no matter what we say to you after that you’ll act like you knocked one out of the park.
That’s actually from the Defense of Christian men blog (or whatever that one is called). I read that post. I still don’t know what “storenography” means. However, the blogger believes that romance novels are a sin because they cause women to desire the kind of relationship portrayed, so I’m guessing it isn’t going to be anything in the real world.
@shade, yeah, and I’ll also note, for the most part it hasn’t been feminists using this tragedy to post even more hateful shit on the internet. It’s been, you guessed it, the MRAs, calling those men “suckers”. So…
OK. I’m gonna spork this ‘why stay virgin til legal sparkle contract day with cake’ thing. WARNING: Not scientific at all. Mostly mockery and vexed snark.
1. It’s called condoms and birth control. Also, many universities in the UK provide nurseries for parents who want educating, including single parents.
2. Condoms? Also, why is there this assumption that you can either be a virgin til you have a nice tiered cake or you have sex with everything that even remotely resembles a penis?
3. If I had any need to get married, I’d get it done in my frankenjeans and my space invaders T-shirt, virgin or not.
4. Oh, I do love giving up my sexual autonomy to ensure a bad Star Trek pun.
5. If I assume that she’s referring to the first thing that gives one sexual pleasure (and I will, because it’s funnier), then I must have ‘imprinted’ on the bath taps I masturbated on, that we have since thrown out because that bath was… bad. WHY DID YOU THROW OUT MY ONE TWUE INPRINT, MUMMY?! *cries*
(Also, ‘inprint’? That’s delightfully incestuous, given what the word actually means.)
6. That’s because women who don’t subscribe to ‘every female must stay unfucked until Magical Cake Day’ tend to be willing to leave relationships that have fallen apart, rather than dragging its corpse around town like in Weekend at Bernie’s.
7. Once again, Madonna/Wh0re. I raise the question to all the, uh, ‘sluts’ on here. Do you regret that you had sex prior to your Mystical Ring Ritual?
8. Just ignore how BC works, what it can be used for…
9. So no virgins have PCOS? No virgins have unbearable periods? No virgins want to regulate their periods so they don’t get periods at inconvienient times, like for example, their wedding day?
10. I get into spawning mode, that parasite is coming out. Married or otherwise.
11. Right. Because no mystic wedding virgin naturally has low fertility. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
12. That’s kind of similar to 11, isn’t it?
13. This is presumably because you imprinted on your husband and he is symbolically your father because of imprinting.
14. Repeat of 1. Also, more Madonna/Wh0re.
15. Wow! A ring! That’s not completely irrelevant to me as I find rings uncomfortable! I get a nice bit of shiny uncomfortable to make up for all the really good sex my partner isn’t giving me. What a deal!
16. Well, duh, if you grow up in an environment that refers to all non-post Sparkle Cake Day sex as ‘fornicating’.
17. Or you could get some wedding attendants with a sense of what is appropriate.
18. … Moo? There’s also something a bit creepy to me about men who want to marry ‘a virgin’ rather than ‘[partner’s name]’.
19. All I can think of is those crappy fashion magazines with instructions on how to hide your blemishes. ‘Now, to cover up genital warts, start with some concealer on your labia…’
20. The day I care about what a figment of my or anyone else’s imagination cares about my sexual practices is the day the ravens fly from the Tower of London. And FYI, they had their wings clipped.
In reference to 19, please do not put concealer on your labia.
sunshinemary: Effie, Mormons reject much of the Christian Bible
BBZZZT
Wrong. They incorporate the King James, and to it add the Book of Mormon.
How many mormons do you know? How many do you know well? How many would you call friend?
Because while it’s a small percentage of the people I know, it is, for me, a non-trivial number.
They are Christians, just not your sort of Christian.
Tell me, do you think Catholics are Christian?
I can only conclude that you do not feel that I should have the right to make choices that you do not like. Interesting.
And my faith in you has been failed; if perhaps my experiential expectation has been fulfilled.
No one has said you aren’t entitled to make the choice. We are challenging your assertions about other people, and how them making your choices will make them happier.
Got it?
I wonder…has sunshine been posting here under the spiritual guidence of her husband?
Also, is she aware that there are men present here? And that according to the Bible no woman may instruct a man? Because that’s what she’s trying to do here isn’t it?
At a guess… doesn’t want say they are an abomination. From the implication of her other statements the only comment she could give; honestly, is, “stop doing it and become chaste, for the Love of God”.
Since that’s going to go over like a serving ham at an Orthodox party… she doesn’t want to give that piece of testimony.
It also opens her up to the question of why the few verses which seem to be about homosexuality are so important, but the much more plentiful one’s about helping the poor, and being merciful to everyone, not judging; lest we be weighed in the balance and found wanting, etc. aren’t given anywhere near the play in her faith.
Since Acts has the passage about the centurion, which follows immediately on the heels of Peter’s vision on the rooftop, where God tells him “nothing is unclean which I have made,” there’s a huge question of how one can condemn a creature of God’s Creation for finding love, and solace and comfort with another creature of God’s creation; even to the point of sex; which is also of God’s Creation, and meant to be a pleasure and a comfort.
At least that’s my guess, based on the way she’s not actually dealt with any of the scriptural questions put to her thus far. I get the impression she didn’t want to discuss, so much as to preach.
Mary: shame[d] her entire family by appearing before congress to discuss how she’s been having so much sex that she just can’t even afford to buy that much birth control
You said that? Even though that’s not what she said.
Even though she’s married?
Even thought hormonal BC isn’t based on how much fucking one does?
Get thee behind me Satan.
pecunium — NWO’s being boring, we had to have someone bearing false witness I guess? (I’m really amused, considering she probably thinks I’m a satan worshiper)
I’m out of practice at beating fundies at their own game…
I’m guessing sunshinemary is a Limbaugh fan. That goofy stuff about having so much sex she can afford her bc pills is straight out of his three day hate fest.
Also imprinting is the religious right’s euphemism for trauma bonding that virgins are expected to experience when they are penetrated by their master on their wedding night.
dude im gonna watch like 3 minutes of it at most so whatever. theres only so much of you awkwardly mumbling into a camera i feel like dealing with.
“Also imprinting is the religious right’s euphemism for trauma bonding that virgins are expected to experience when they are penetrated by their master on their wedding night.”
*hed esplodes* I was hoping that was some weird Twilight shit, but it’s so much worse. I mean, fuck, all sex must be traumatic? Wtf sort of message is that?! (Hey pecunium, today’s random Latin is — I wish English had iste, a contemptuous pronoun is a wonderful thing)
Argenti: We do have douchebag.
@the bewilderness
I know precisely what they mean by ‘imprinting’. I also know what it refers to in psychology. And then I also pulled in the disturbing imprinting wtf from Twilight and oh, eww…
It’s one thing I’ve thought a lot when reading crappy, unedited writing:
Words have connotations. Your word choice has connotations that make what you’re saying creepy, disturbing, or just plain bizzarre. Additionally, I am confiscating your thesaurus until you learn the above, and having a long shower with a sandpaper scrubbie puff.
@Argenti
Twilight had imprinting as child grooming, so I really don’t know what’s worse.
Meyer herself is Arizona LDS, which has a lot of traditional values. I’m now wondering if this has got anything to do with her use of that word (although she claims to have got it from a nature documentary.)
pecunium — idk that douchebag really makes for an effective pronoun, but good point. (Wtf is douchebag?! Would not get the point across the way the emphasized that does)
creativewritingstudent — oh, right, Twilight is epically creepy with the whole werewolf and baby love thing…so no, not much better.
To be fair, the term “imprinting” is used if somewhat bad old biology and misunderstood animal training as well as some evopsych shit around infants too (you’ll hear people talking about babies “imprinting” with their mothers after birth…), so it’s not necessarily the case that Twilight is the first thing anyone would think of with that term.
I assume the term “imprinting” was picked for Twilight from misunderstandings of dog psychology and behavior. There is an untrue theory that certain breeds of dogs can only “imprint” onto one master and can never be as loyal or trustworthy with anyone else. This myth is still pretty big around Rottweilers. Rottweilers are often rather assertive, highly intelligent, pack oriented dogs, and may be defensive against unaccompanied strangers, but they aren’t actually “imprinted” on a single master and can introduced to new people and can be re-homed with proper introduction and care. A lot of people think that Rottweilers can’t be re-homed except as small puppies, but that’s not true. And they can be very wonderful and rewarding dogs with proper training, socialization, and experienced owners (inexperienced or more passive in personality owners often can’t handle more assertive, highly intelligent dogs of any breed). Rottweilers bred as guard dogs or working dogs often have excellent health, but negative traits have been bred into some show bred ones….and I’ve gone off on a tangent…I’m rambling about dogs …
I hear imprinting and I think of training horses; immediately after birth that some things (clippers, having their feet prodded/smacked, things put into orifices, pressure on their ba ks, things in their mouths, crinkly things, etc) are ok.