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.
at least be clever about it.
You first. Or else hele on and take your extra apostrophes with you.
Yeah, the first three paragraphs of this one were kind of a downer. But if you read past them, you might have realized this article actually disproves your point:
Reading is fundamental.
sunshinemary: I also did not say that someone would be happier if they made the same choices that I have made.
No, you merely said that the women who made the choices you made weren’t “bitter, spinsters”. That’s a comparative statement. It is, in terms of rhetorical effect, saying the one thing (submissive housewifery, in a, “traditional” format) prevents the other (being bitter, childless, and fond of posting “diatribes” on the internet).
It is clear that I am not a troll. I am a Christian,
The one does not preclude the other.
But if you are not a Christian, then obviously you will not think that way.
Sorry sweetcakes, but that’s another non-sequitor. Not all Christians share your views. How many pairs of shoes do you own? How many coats?
It isn’t disrespect on my part; the women who write the essays are childless, they are spinsters, and they write about being bitter
Childless isn’t a tragedy; not unless one wants children. Spinster… is the same. Bitter… depends on what they are bitter about. I’m bitter that women don’t get paid the same for the same work. I’m bitter that my joints are fucked up. I’m bitter that the “solutions” to the world’s financial mess are making it worse.
I’d still be bitter about them if I wasn’t a feminist (well maybe I’d not notice the first one so much), because those are fitting things to be bitter about.
Argenit: I blame a lack of food. Now I have to go and reconstruct it. Give me a sec…
Nope. I didn’t forget a clause. The last line is completely extraneous. It was a quotation I didn’t need to use, and had fallen out of view.
Mea culpa.
sunshinemary: I would enjoy the chance to discuss Scripture if it is allowed here. The verses you reference are regarding the body of Christ as a whole, not explaining how individual households should be organized.
You think so… prove it. Show me where Paul said that. Where it was explicit? Because I’ve read the book (in several translations), closely, and I don’t recall that.
Those are people doing what you say we can’t do… reading hidden implications into the plain words.
You first. Or else hele on and take your extra apostrophes with you.
You first was a nice retort. Grammarian critique…not so much.
But hey, I see a few of you prefer to engage in your mockery without any response. You’d prefer I hele on. A’ole pilikia.
A hui hou!
DON’T TELL ME THEY LIVE NEAR ME! AGH! O.o
I’m sure discussing Scriptures around here is fine. We routinely discuss the implications of fictional canon, whether it be Supernatural, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, or DC and Marvel comics. So I don’t see why there would be any objections to discussing your own fictional fandom.
I think instead of referring directly to sunshinemary, we should just refer to “certain antifeminist Christian women bloggers who fart a lot,” just to keep the whole passive-aggressive thing going here.
Lol, here have some chicken rice stuff, it isn’t nearly up to the quality you make, but it’s food *passes the rice*
I just want to say that this may be the best English-language sentence I have ever seen. Ever. XD
i want to see sunshine mary meet self-proclaimed super christian nwoslave. i want that a lot.
@Keoni Galt
Your very own Manboobz post! Dude, you’re famous!!!!!
@sharculese who asked:
dalrock has a crew?
Dalrock’s “crew” would be his links on his site. A lot of the commenters on his blog post regularly on A Voice for Men and The Spearhead.
Especially since the passage starts out as a directive to wives specifically. I personally find it inconsistent with the spirit of Jesus who told his disciples to let the little children come to him, who taught Mary and defended her right to be taught when someone else tried to reason otherwise, who willingly spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well and answered her questions despite the social sanctions against it, who went near lepers and tax collectors and the despised segments of society.
I’m not sure sunshinemary is really up for discussing scripture, so much as she expects to be able to “testify” to her stripe of belief.
This is not likely to go well, at least not in terms of her interpretations being taken as anything close to gospel. But I suspect some of us are going to have fun.
That’s a point. sunshinemary: do you accept that an equal marriage, in which neither party is submissive to the other, is consistent with Christian morality?
There seems to be some confusion about the difference between spiritual development and household organization. Of course women must be taught by Christ. However, we also have homes which need to work in an orderly fashion. Christian husbands are meant to be the heads of their homes. The result is meant to be a productive, peaceful household.
It must be that Utah has twice the national average in anti-depression prescription rates because the submissive mormon mother-wives – the vast majority of adult women in Utah – are contented, happy, pleasant people, fulfilled and sure of their purpose in life.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/feb/20/news/mn-28924
The fact that Utah leads the nation in clinical depression is, I’m sure, proof of the same contended happiness.
http://www.nmha.org/go/state-ranking
At least, I would think that if I were an idiot. But because I’m not an idiot, I know that a culture that breeds repression, that is based on misogyny and the inferiority of women, is not going to produce truly happy women. Rather, it’s probably going to produce levels of depression at…wait for it…twice the national average.
Please note, Mary, that no matter how much fondant one layers onto a turd, at the end of the day, it is still a turd. YOU may be perfectly content with being your husband’s property. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us would be, and, if we’re going by the numbers, it appears that a large segment of the population demonstrably isn’t.
The Bible is clear that wives are to be submissive to their husbands.
sunshinemary: There seems to be some confusion about the difference between spiritual development and household organization. Of course women must be taught by Christ. However, we also have homes which need to work in an orderly fashion. Christian husbands are meant to be the heads of their homes. The result is meant to be a productive, peaceful household.
That’s a statement with null-content.
There is nothing in the last sentence, which is required of the preceding sentences. A productive , peaceful household can be one which in which the man stays home, and the woman works. He cooks, and cleans and changes the diapers.
It can be egalitarian, where both work, and decisions are joint, with consensus being required.
And neither of those possibilities precludes it being a christian marriage.
not me. i just wanna swear at people.
What makes men and women different that means a household led by a man will be productive and peaceful and one led by a woman, or by a partnership in which problems are discussed by the partners equally, will not?
(I have a feeling bringing up households that aren’t One Man And One Woman here may prove ellipsis counterproductive.)
Effie, I am only speaking of Christians, not Mormons. Anyway, perhaps their troubles are due more to the fact that they eat more jello than anyone else in the country, not that the wives are submissive:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_state_consumes_the_most_Jell-o
Is it? Are you sure? How do you know?
Did you sit down before the text, “as a little child”, with no ideas; a tabula rasa or did some man tell you what it meant?