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.
oh for fucks sake. do you really think this sort of passive aggressive wheedling is polite
is it time to post saramago again?
OK, I admit I’m behind here, but — “Another Inego Montoya moment.
I must admit to being a little tired of them.” o.O?!
You mean this one —
http://youtu.be/YIP6EwqMEoE
Inigo Montoya moments need to include this one —
http://youtu.be/k7zvffHu_wo
I should clarify that I do not consider myself to be an MRA, though I am sympathetic to some of their concerns. The only title I can really claim is “Christian”. There are blogs in the Christian manosphere that I enjoy reading. Sometimes I agree with them; sometimes I do not. I am not dyed-in-wool and I don’t mind reconsidering some of my opinions so long as it does not conflict with my faith.
I admit I’m still trying to figure out which essays you’re talking about, sunshinemary. The only recent example that leaps to my mind is Anne-Marie Slaughter’s “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” in The Atlantic. But Slaughter is neither childless (she writes about her sons in the essay), nor a spinster (she mentions her spouse as well, IIRC), nor in her 40s (she was born in 1958). There’s no discussion in that essay at all about her marriage dynamic – for all we know, she’s dutifully doing exactly what her husband directs her to, and nothing else.
Also, Slaughter’s bitterness in that piece is not directed at being either childless or a spinster (as she’s neither). It’s aimed at a culture that tells her she can have both a career and a family only if she’s willing put in superhuman amounts of work to get them, and that if she doesn’t put in that work, she’s a failure.
So what “essays” are you talking about?
On one of the occasions when Jesus allowed his mind to ponder what the Lord might want from him when they met again, Pastor’s words suddenly came back to him as loudly and sharply as if the shepherd were standing right beside him, You’ve learned nothing, and at that moment the feeling of loss and solitude was so great as he sat by himself on the bank of the Jordan, watching his feet in the transparent river, a fine thread of blood suspended in the water, from a heel, that suddenly the blood and the heel no longer belonged to him, it was his father who had come there, limping on pierced feet, to find relief in the cool water of the river, and he repeated what Pastor had said, You must start all over again, for you’ve learned nothing. As if lifting a long, heavy iron chain from the ground, Jesus recalled his life so far, link by link, the mysterious annunciation of his conception, the earth that shone, his birth in the cave, the massacred innocents of Bethlehem, his father’s crucifixion, the nightmare he had inherited, the flight from home, the debate in the Temple, the revelation of Salome, the appearance of the shepherd, his experiences with the flock, the rescued lamb, the desert, the dead sheep, God. And as if this last word was too much for his mind to encompass, he concentrated on one question, Why should a lamb rescued from death eventually die as a sheep, an absurd question if ever there was one, it might make more sense if rephrased as follows, No salvation lasts, and damnation is final. And the last link in the chain is sitting now on the bank of the Jordan, listening to the mournful song of a woman who cannot be seen from here, she is hidden among the rushes, perhaps washing clothes, perhaps bathing, while Jesus tries to understand how all these things are connected, the living lamb that became a dead sheep, his feet bleeding his father’s blood, and the woman singing, naked, lying on her back in the water, firm breasts above the surface, dark pubic hair ruffled by the breeze, for though it is true that Jesus never saw a naked woman before, if a man can predict, just by encountering a simple column of smoke, what it will be like to be with God when the time comes, then why should he not be able to visualize a naked woman in every detail, assuming she is naked, merely by listening to the song she sings, even though the words are not addressed to him. Joseph is no longer here, he has returned to the common grave in Sepphoris, while Pastor, not so much as the tip of his shepherd’s crook is to be seen, and God, if He is everywhere, as people say, perhaps He is now in that current, in the very water where the woman is bathing. Jesus’s body received a signal, the place between his legs began to swell, as with all humans and animals, the blood rushing there, causing his sores to dry up at once. Lord, this body has such strength, yet Jesus made no attempt to go in search of the woman, and his hands resisted the violent temptation of the flesh, You are no one until you love yourself, you will not reach God until you love your body. No one knows who spoke these words, God could not have spoken them, for they are not beads from His rosary, Pastor could well have uttered them, except he is far away, so perhaps they were the words of the song the woman sang. Jesus thought, How I wish I could go there and ask her to explain, but the singing had stopped, perhaps swept away by the current, or possibly the woman simply stepped from the water to dry herself and dress, thus silencing her body. Jesus put on his wet shoes and rose to his feet, dripping water everywhere like a sponge. The woman will have a good laugh if she passes this way and sees him wearing this grotesque footwear, but she will stop laughing when her eyes take in the shape beneath his tunic and stare at length into those eyes saddened by sorrows past and present, but looking troubled now for quite a different reason. With few or no words she will remove her clothes again and offer to do what one might expect in such cases, she will take off his shoes with the utmost care and tend those sores, kissing each of his feet and then covering them with her own damp hair, as if protecting an egg or cocoon. No sign of anyone coming down the road, Jesus looks around him, sighs, looks for a spot to conceal himself, heads there, but comes to a sudden halt, remembering in time that the Lord punished Onan with death for spilling his seed on the ground. Now, Jesus could have provided a more sophisticated interpretation of this old episode, as was his wont, and not been deterred by the Lord’s inflexibility, for two reasons, the first being that he had no sister-in-law by whom he was legally bound to provide an heir for a deceased brother, the second and perhaps more compelling reason being that the Lord, according to what He told him in the desert, had definite plans for his future which were yet to be revealed, therefore it would be neither practical nor logical to forget the promise made and risk losing everything, just because an uncontrolled hand strayed where it should not have, for the Lord knows our corporal needs, which are not confined to food and drink, there are other forms of abstention just as hard to endure. These and similar reflections should have encouraged Jesus to follow his natural inclinations and find a quiet spot to satisfy his urge, but instead they distracted him and confused him so much that he soon lost the desire to yield to wicked temptation. Resigned to his own virtue, Jesus lifted the pack to his shoulder, took up his staff, and went on his way.
Well, here is one. There are so many…how many shall I post?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/9414743/Love-in-the-time-of-austerity.html
sunshinemary: But girls, you have exactly proved my point! I respectfully expressed an opinion different than yours,
This is your idea of “respectful”
I think Keoni Galt is correct about the few women who have chosen the traditional path of being submissive wives and nurturing mothers – they tend to be much more pleasant and contented than the childless 40-something spinsters whose bitter diatribes are chronicled in long, dull essays that are so popular at the moment.
You just insulted a bunch of people you’ve never met; using terms that, were they used about you, would offend you.
Nowhere in that did you, politely refute the other person’s ideas, Rather you called them “spinsters”, and “bitter” (one of which is something I am pretty sure your sub-culture takes as both a condemnatory adjective, and a moral judgement). Nowhere in that did you refute anything. You made an unsupported assumption, one that was actually refuted with reference to people who were in that set of subcultures, and said it was stultifying, and oppressive.
This you lied about, and said was people calling you/them mentally ill in the comments between your first, and this one to which I am responding.
So, in addition to being rude, and intentionally offensive, your, “respectful response” is based on a lie about the people you are excoriating.
That’s some fine Christian Example you are setting.
but rather to swear at them or to call them mentally ill.
Sunshinemary, that whole witnessing thing? You are doing it wrong. I suggest you go here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/
That might help you sort yourself out.
I suppose here is another:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2125259/I-dated-50-men-months-STILL-didnt-love.html
Oh wow.. Haha… Damn, I should have called it. I knew that after the Telegraph, the Daily Mail would be next.
inc. “poor persecuted Christians” pearl-clutching.
sunshinemary: I do apologize if anyone took offense to my original comment about spinsters; it wasn’t directed at anyone here. These kinds of essays are quite popular right now, but I don’t mean to imply that they reflect on the readers of this blog.
Declined. I don’t believe you. I think you said what you meant to say, in the place you meant to say it, and that what you said, you meant.
As a result that’s an inadequate apology, so far as I am concerned. Not that I think you care, since you didn’t really mean it. It was meant to make the formal gesture, so you can say,”I was polite”. You aren’t being polite, you are being pro-forma.
No absolution from me, not unless I see reform.
And this… “I do apologize if anyone took offense to my original comment about spinsters; it wasn’t directed at anyone here. These kinds of essays are quite popular right now, but I don’t mean to imply that they reflect on the readers of this blog,” is the evidence for the lack of reform… that apologetic phrasing contains another insult, which is why I don’t believe that was an honest apology.
If you want to be nasty, be nasty. Don’t try to sugar coat your bitter words, don’t try to pretend to us (who can read them) that you didn’t mean them. Certainly don’t try to pretend it to yourself. You’ll be happier (and more pleasant) if you own up to your anger.
I’d say post until you get to one that actually supports your argument (hint: it’s not an article that roots dissatisfaction among under-40s in economic depression and austerity and not in their marital or parental status, as the Telegraph article does). But it’s not my blog.
So I guess it’s finally my turn for a Futrelle-led 2 minutes of hate, eh?
At the moment, I got the time, so I’ll play along for shits and giggles…
To those that wonder, why yes, I am of native Hawaiian blood.
No, I am not a “conspiracy theorist,” I only ruminate and write about what I consider to be “conspiracy facts.” Feel free to ignore, marginalize or revile me for it, I’ve long ago accepted that writing about such things causes those types of reactions. It comes with the territory.
And yes, the “Galt” comes from the concept of “going galt.,” while “Keoni” is nothing more than the Hawaiian translation for “John.”
As for anonymity – why yes, most of us certainly do have to strive to keep anonymity, as those of us who espouse politically incorrect opinions certainly do have to protect our identities, lest we face real world consequences from folks vested in maintaining politically correct control of society.
The matrix is a popular analogy in the MRM, because it so accurately portrays our current reality.
Freedom of speech? Hah, that no longer exists (if it ever really did). You feminists are free to post whatever you like under your real names on your facebook pages. You won’t be fired, harrassed or reviled for it. After all, feminism is the correct way to view the world, right? Anyone who thinks otherwise is: {insert your favorite insult or derisive phrase.} lol
To quote one of my favorite songs, “What?! The land of the free?! Whoever told you that is your enemy.”
I’ll be surprised if our venerable host here lets this comment post unedited (but if he does, I will post again and commend him for intellectual honesty.).
My past experience with pro-feminist/pro-progressive websites are that they edit or censor oppositional opinions regularly to “win” the debate and make the opposition look bad.
As to clarify my point for that post…why yes, I certainly am a misogynist. I’m also a misandrist, too. You see, I’m basically a misanthrope. I hate most people until they prove otherwise. For those I deem worthy, I’d do anything for them (because I know they’d do the same for me).
I no longer accept anyone, anywhere at face value. And most women I meet in real life? I’ve found that most of them are self-absorbed and only concerned about men in so much as it serves their own wants and needs.
Until they prove otherwise, that is my baseline prejudice when I meet women. That’s a point of view that has certainly evolved from many experiences with a wide range of women in my time on this planet. Whenever I meet new people, I observe their behavior and judge them accordingly.
Those who prove otherwise, I have no problem giving them the respect that they deserve.
Do I care that a women helped write and create the Matrix allegory we MRM bloggers like to use? Not at all. I’d thank her personally for helping to disseminate “the red pill. ” I care not about the gender of anyone who speaks or writes about what I perceive of as absolute truth. Truth is all I care about.
My “misogyny” is the result of a well-developed filtering mechanism from years of negative experiences. Women who I observe and ascertain are of honorable character and worthy of real respect? I deem them to be one of the greatest joys in this life to interact and build relationships with.
Women who aren’t? Waste of time and energy dealing with, and given our current legal climate, downright dangerous and even lethal. For those who’ve experienced it, you know this is no exaggeration.
As for the commenter here that wished to hear from the people in my past, I assure you, I’ve reached a point in my life in which I readily recognize those who are users and manipulators, both male and female, and I have cut them out of my life. Life’s to short to waste it dealing with drama’s of self-centered, manipulative people.
Finally, I see the scorn many of you have for the “nice guy.” Good. I share it. “Nice guys” are simply trying to gain favor by supplicating and currying for it by supplication. You can’t ‘buy’ respect from anyone, man or woman. My post was based on having gained a self-awareness of just how contemptible of a person I had become in trying to fit the template of the “nice guy.”
My upbringing certainly had me believing women were morally superior to men. That men’s basic sexual desire was deviant (“men are pigs”). This was the distilled message of a lifetime of mass media messages and institutional “education” that inculcated this attitude that guided my former behavior.
Recognizing the misandry of modern society is what gave me the gift of misogyny so that I was able to break free of my conditioning and stop worshiping at the pedestal of of the goddess.
Feel free to hate me for it, Manboobz sycophants and supporters! The feeling is most assuredly mutual. 🙂
This was particularly sad:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/
The Daily Fail one is even further off the mark, lol.
I revise my previous suggestion: stop posting links until you’ve bothered to read and analyze what they’re actually about.
Er…I always figured that people were happiest living fulfilling lives no matter what fulfilling means to them personally. Some women might feel fulfilled and happy being submissive housewives. It is a logical fallacy to attribute something that is fulfilling to some individuals and extrapolate it to an entire gender.
I am a wife an mother. I also work full time at a job I enjoy. I am a very dominant person. I enjoy the company of my submissive husband. It wrks for us. It makes us happy. I cannot understand people who are so obsessed with pinning down one version of a happy and fulfilled life to the extent that they must discount all others.
Oh, believe me, there is no rule against bringing up scriptures here. In fact, I think I’ve seen better scripture discussions here than in just about any bible study or sunday school I’ve been to. Could be because the people here are not so devoted to the ‘One True Conservative Bible Interpretation’ that I come across far too often in my own church.
nobody cares. go away.
what is with wingnuts and misappropriating orwell tho? it would be adorable if it wasnt so played out.
Feel free to hate me for it
To paraphrase the great Mr. T: I don’t hate Keoni. But I pity the fool.
Kudo’s Futrelle, for posting my comment un-edited. I honestly did not expect it, I give you your due as I said I would.
Carry on with the mockery, manboobz regulars…but please folks, at least be clever about it.
“I’ll be surprised if our venerable host here lets this comment post unedited (but if he does, I will post again and commend him for intellectual honesty.).”
So, did your comment get edited? Considering the shit NWO says, I have serious doubts you got edited.
pecunium — I think you dropped a clause again —
I’m curious what that second sentence was supposed to say (and when you started violating English the way I do! “But…” is my bad grammar, don’t go picking it up!)
sunshinemary: It might be best just to stick to my actual words and not try to find hidden implications.
Physician, heal thyself.