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.
Beats me. I didn’t start hanging out here until after I became a liberal God-fearing woman.
Sorry, Amnesia, I missed your comment. I’m in and out of the conversation (I have a lot of children to manage 🙂 ).
We must submit first to God; if the husband asks the wife to disobey God, she must not submit to him in this case.
Regarding the “no longer quivering” blog – I am familiar with it. I suppose my husband and I are what you might call “quiverfull”. I do not think this woman’s experiences are particularly common; it is sad there her situation was so bad. She is to be prayed for, but her example is not common and so there is no greater lesson to be learned other than sometimes people do not live according to the rules God has laid out for us for our own benefit.
How does a conservative God-fearing woman find herself here at Man Boobz, by the way
This blog was mentioned on another blog that I read. I was interested. I don’t mind reading opposing opinions. If I am not welcome here, then the administrator can ask me to leave, and I will do so.
@sunshinemary
I wish her example were less common than it is. There are two Christian women I know personally that have escaped abusive relationships with their Christian husbands, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find more of them among my acquaintance that I just don’t know about.
I like to assume that everyone on the Internet is telling the truth about themselves. I meet so many super-genius lawyer inventors with submissive lingerie-model girlfriends that way.
No, I am not a “conspiracy theorist,” I only ruminate and write about what I consider to be “conspiracy facts.”
I just want to say that this may be the best English-language sentence I have ever seen. Ever. XD
That was awesome, but this one has some comedy meat on its bones too:
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.
Now let’s get serious here, people. We’d better buckle down and work hard if we want to win the respect of an anonymous guy on the Internet who compares his life to “The Matrix” with a straight face.
I always found those verses from Ephesians funny. Let’s set aside the fact that those are allegedly letters written by Paul, and not something taught by Christ, which would lead to the question, “Why is this even considered scripture to be followed by Christians?” No, let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that Ephesians 5:22-30 IS actually a holy decree and not something written by an asshole who just hated women.
Has anyone who argues the integrity of those verses ever considered that a submissive wife is doing an action, whereas a husband loving his wife is just feeling an emotion? That opens the door for all kinds of abuse. A wife may hate her husband, she may resent him, she may fantasize about killing him in his sleep. Her love isn’t required. A wife is not required to love her husband. She’s just required to submit to him.
The corollary to that is that a husband is required only to feel love for his wife. He’s not required, in that decree, to treat her decently. He can treat her however he likes so long as he claims he’s doing it out of “love.” He can lie to her all day long and say that he’s beating or starving or isolating her from her friends and family and calling her worthless because he loves her and wants what’s best for her. And since there is no third-party accountability in Christian Patriarchy movements, no safe place for her to go, she has no recourse. None.
To claim that such a hierarchical, woman-performance-based system doesn’t allow for abuse is naive at best, disingenuous at worse. Anyone who has studied cult behaviors and Stockholm Syndrome knows how that goes down for the people on the bottom rungs of that social ladder.
Wow, Shaenon, I didn’t even catch that, that’s awesome. Yeah, dude, this is my real name. Also my profile pic.
Also, the two obligations are not symmetrical in any way. If a woman is to her husband as the church is to Christ, well, that’s hardly an equal relationship. Obviously Christ is going to have all the power in his relationship. As will the husband in his.
Furthermore, there’s the question of “who exactly is keeping tabs on the husband to make sure he loves his wife ‘properly’?” Well, one can argue that “God keeps tabs!” However, that doesn’t translate particularly well into day-to-day checks and balances. The husband can say and do whatever he likes under the guise of “God is telling me this is right and holy.” That doesn’t stop it from being abusive and a load of baloney.
Obligations are all well and good in an egalitarian structure with impartial third-party enforcement. In a hierarchy behind closed doors? We’ve all heard the phrase “shit rolls downhill.”
Effie, a man is to love his wife the way Christ loved the church. Christ did not just feel loving feelings for us; he died for us. John 15:13 tells us: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Jesus laid down his life for us; husbands must sacrifice for their wives even unto death if need be. Women are not called to this kind of sacrifice. The least we can do is give respect to men. They have greater authority than we have, but they are also called to greater responsibility. The safest place for a woman is under the protection and authority of her husband.
You’re on the wrong thread of “men must die for their women”…though i can’t wait for NWO’s reaction to that.
Actual physical abuse from a husband (not a boyfriend) to a wife is not all that common. Furthermore, women are the perpetrators in about half of domestic violence incidents. We have laws against domestic violence which serve as “third-party” enforcement. There is no need to invalidate the hierarchy because of (rare) incidences of domestic violence.
wrong thread *for; and capitalize that I
I fail, and I’ve barely touched my mango juice and vodka (maybe that’s the problem, I’m having a bender moment and am not drunk enough)
What happens if her husband is abusive? Or incapable of handling that responsibility? What recourse does a woman have then?
Oh, okay. Her recourse is “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA”. That makes me feel better, then.
Because then anyone he likes can hurt me? No, the safest place for me is with my own power, and independent.
Not in the general population, perhaps. It is in these communities you’re trying to say can’t have it because SUBMISSIVE WIFE. Funny how that works.
Only if we assume all self defense against abuse is ‘domestic violence’.
Also, how does this work for gay women? Is one of us supposed to take up the role of husband, or are we both expected to marry a dude and not fuck him? Or lie back and think of england while he does sex to us, I suppose?
sunshinemary: There is no place for abuse in this hierarchy.
Really… no sense of, “spare the rod and spoil th child”? No, “firm but loving correction?”.
No James Dobson’s, explaining that the Lord and Master of the House needs to be obeyed without reservation, and that “willfulness” is worthy of corporal punshment?
Nope, not ever?
And I see you’ve not answered any of the other, perhaps more pertinent questions on how one is to properly submit.
Selfless love (agapao, unto death) flows down the hierarchy from God to man to woman to children. Respect flows up the hierarchy from children to women to men to God. Friendliness (phileo) can flow in both directions. There is no place for abuse in this hierarchy.
That’s bullshit. Respect, real honest to goodness respect, as one who is looking at a moral, emotional, personal, equal, is needed if the system is to work. It can’t work if one has to respect those above, but not below.
The primary teaching of Jesus (and the apostolic writers; with the possible exceptions of Deutero-Paul and the certain one of The Book Of Revelations of St John the Divine) is, “be good to one another”.
Jesus is broader, he said to be good to everyone. Paul agrees, but focuses on how to best be good to those with whom one spends one’s time, most esp. in the church.
So, how many pairs of shoes have you got? How many coats? How much of your money is given to the poor? You want to prattle about how you live the “Christian Life” as “the Bible mandates”, you have problems if the answer to the first two questions is more than one.
The parable of the widow’s mite is the same as that of the rich man… to make it to heaven one has to give everything. Me, I don’t believe that, it’s not functional (Hillel’s golden rule works better too), but I strive to not be too concerned with material things. I give to the poor and the needy (both to institutions, and to people). We make heaven by decreasing the pain in the world.
Which means engaging the pain on it’s terms, not the terms of my faith, or yours, or Ghandi’s. The pain is real, now. God can deal with the rest of it., I’ll work on the here and the now.
We must submit first to God; if the husband asks the wife to disobey God, she must not submit to him in this case.
How does she know what is the correct interpretation? You say she is to submit to him, as he submits to the Church, and the Church to God. Total, and absolute. If he says God has inspired him, who is she to disagree?
sunshinemary: Actual physical abuse from a husband (not a boyfriend) to a wife is not all that common.
Really?
How do you know? What if she has decided that her wifely duty is to submit? what about emotional abuse?
Also… I don’t see you arguing scripture, you are making apologia (with ill-defined references to scriptural passages you’ve not defended; even when they’ve been questioned. You gave a very sloppy justification for “submission, and then proceeded as if we all accepted it; even though there are pending challenges to it), for the “submissive wifely lifestyle. That’s fine and dandy, but it’s not scripture.
It’s culture, but it’s culture you are basing on on an interpretation of a very small part of your religions holy books, and you aren’t explaining why they mean what you say they mean, rather than what we say they mean.
Heck, you aren’t even answering questions about what they mean, only telling us how you try to obey these understandings you have, but won’t share.
RK, I cannot begin to advise you on how gay women should order their relationships for obvious reasons. I am a Christian and follow the Bible in determining how my relationships should be structured.
I’m sorry, I have to call it a night. I enjoyed our conversation, but I need to get little ones into bed now. 🙂 Have a blessed evening.
Cool! So how many foreskins did your husband present to your father before he allowed you to marry him?
sunshinemary I am a Christian and follow
the Biblewhat my church, and husband tell me in determining how my relationships should be structured.FTFY.
so… because youre a bigot?