Categories
a woman is always to blame all about the menz antifeminism antifeminist women mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA

Dalrock: Men can help women by talking crap about them

Man helping woman
Man helping ungrateful woman

Today’s the final day of the We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive! Please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!

The good folks at A Voice for Men have long made it clear that, as far at they’re concerned, yelling at feminists (and women in general) on the internet is their activism. Forget building shelters or setting up hotlines for men with the hundreds of thousands of dollars they claim to have raised over the years; talking shit about women is how, in their minds, they help men. 

Now reactionary Manosphere blogger Dalrock has done them one better. As he sees it, talking shit about women is how he and his commenters help women

Recently, a new commenter to his site — a woman — asked him a simple question:

I know this blog is about the destructive and weak behavior of women in their relationships with men. However, I was wondering if you can think of any comparable examples of behavior exhibited by men in their relationships with women.

Dalrock responded by telling her that, as far as he’s concerned, the biggest problem with male behavior is that men are insufficiently critical of women.

Men are failing women terribly by refusing to speak the truth about bad behavior of women.  Calling out bad behavior of women is difficult and feels uncomfortable, and men are taking the easy feel good path.  This hurts the very women men are refusing to speak the truth about.

Oh, and talking shit about women is the best way women can help women as well.

But there is another way that men’s failure here is hurting women.  Not all women are protective of a push to debauch the culture.  While all women (just like all men) face temptation to sin, some women are actively trying to push for better standards of behavior by women.  In a properly functioning society, much if not most of the day to day policing of female behavior is done by women, and this is a biblical role.

So whenever you hear someone ranting about how women are a bunch of dirty whores, just remember: they’re only trying to help!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
littletaeo
littletaeo
5 years ago

“In a properly functioning society, much if not most of the day to day policing of female behavior is done by women, and this is a biblical role.”

This is a sentence a real human being wrote. I mean… Is it bad that this made me laugh? Because it did… because it’s just so ridiculous.

How do the people that WRITE this take this seriously enough to hit the publish button on this?

And I know it’s MORE than just ridiculous. It’s scary, too, when you think about the people that take these ideas further and do this stuff irl. But sometimes I’m just hit by the ridiculous way it sounds and I just… I go in to lolwut mode. (And maybe losing a little bit of faith in humanity. But sometimes laughing is more fun.)

Sofia van der Linde
5 years ago

“I am only trying to help”

When did bigotry become this passive aggressive?

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Men are failing women terribly by refusing to speak the truth about bad behavior of women. Calling out bad behavior of women is difficult and feels uncomfortable, and men are taking the easy feel good path. This hurts the very women men are refusing to speak the truth about.

This, completely devoid of context, is actually a good idea. Calling out people for being shitty people helps those people grow and learn from their experiences by challenging them to look at how their actions effect others. And yeah, sometimes it’s hard to call people out, and yeah, women sometimes reinforce the idea of toxic masculinity and this does hurt men.

With the context however, I’d like to point out that “women won’t fuck me”, “women are bitches to me because they won’t fuck me”, “women are gold-digging whores”, “women are only good for sex and making babies”, or any variation of MRA policy on women, is not a failing of women, but rather your own damn fault for believing this drivel and being a shitty person in general.

FreddyMurray
FreddyMurray
5 years ago

So…

Calling women out on perceived “bad behaviors” (i.e. anything not pertaining to satisfying men’s boners) is “helpful”…

Yet calling assholes out on actual bad behavior (like, say, calling women all kinds of slurs just because they want nothing to do with said assholes) is “misandry”.

Makes perfect sense. /s

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
5 years ago

Men are failing women terribly by refusing to speak the truth about bad behavior of women.

Wait, the shittiest thing men do in relationships is not be shitty enough? What?

and this is a biblical role

Ah yes, the part where Jesus instructed everybody to slut-shame each other. He was big on people judging one another. And hypocrisy.

Terrabeau
Terrabeau
5 years ago

“See, honey, when I berate you in front of your friends and treat you like a petulant child, I’m really only doing it because you won’t behave! I’m really doing you a favor.” Classic abuser mindset, right there.

Cassie Devereaux
5 years ago

Divide and rule tactics.

Cassie Devereaux
5 years ago

Also, I’d like him to give a chapter-and-verse citation on that “biblical role” claim.

raysa
raysa
5 years ago

I translate part of this article as saying :

“If only women would slut shame each other, then we men wouldn’t have to! Think of all the free man time we’d be havin’!”

I don’t know if it’s biblical for “women to police other women.” But it’s a huge part of patriarchy. So much easier for the men to get women to keep each other pure and in line with the important skill set of man pleasing and serving.

I have been told by MRA boys, more than once, that women willing participated in the early patriarchy, back when we weren’t allowed education, ownership of property, etc. To which I reply DUH! What choice did we have, since, by law, we were property, owned and controlled by a father, husband, or other male relative?

Participating by force is not the same as choosing to participate. But, they have never been able to understand the simple concept that is consent.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

I get the strangest feeling it’s only a matter of time before Dalrock’s little Ashley Madison account comes to light. It’s positively striking how many of these woman-criticizing purity culturists have accounts with that sinful, debauched* place.

*and strangely devoid of actual women

Cassie Devereaux
5 years ago

Ugh, yeah. The author of the Titus and Timothy epistles had issues. He’s not the only one but, good golly.

Thanks for the clarification!

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Hahahaha fuck this guy. Go shove a bible up your urethra.

Snowberry
Snowberry
5 years ago

“10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.”

Just out of curiosity, does this mean “teach your slaves not to steal from you, so they’ll become trustworthy, and be better at helping you proselytize” or “don’t steal from your slaves, so they’ll trust you, and they’ll be easier to convert”? The grammar’s a bit wonky and this translation seems like it could go either way.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
5 years ago

Then there’s Luke 10:38-42, where Jesus explicitly says that for women, spiritual development is much more important and lasting than keeping house.

Catalpa
Catalpa
5 years ago

I agree with PI, outside of the context of this awful thing, encouraging people to communicate with their partners and other people in their lives is a good idea. Being able to express when something upsets you and working through the issue with the related people to come to an agreeable conclusion is a highly valuable skill to have.

Hell, I’d even encourage shitbuckets like this to clearly communicate their asshattery, too, so that all decent people can identify them quickly and avoid them like the plague.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

Not all women are protective of a push to debauch the culture.

This is my own particular favorite. Such roundabout, passive, obscurely censorious wording!

How’s this, Dalrock?

Not all women try to corrupt our culture.

OR

Not all women enable others who try to corrupt our culture.

Too straightforward for you? Afraid that women will get mad at you? Hey, stand up for what you believe!

And I’d like to second Buttercup Q. Skullpants’s opinion:

Then there’s Luke 10:38-42, where Jesus explicitly says that for women, spiritual development is much more important and lasting than keeping house.

In fact, Martha does police Mary’s behavior. She complains to Jesus that Mary won’t help her in the kitchen when Jesus and some disciples show up at Martha and Mary’s house. Jesus kindly tells Martha that Mary chose more wisely by sitting and listening to Jesus talk.

I’ve actually always felt sympathetic toward Martha because she was working hard in the kitchen. How about a solution that works for everyone?

Kestrel
Kestrel
5 years ago

@Snowberry – Since passage 10 is a continuation of the sentence started in passage 9, I believe the “them” refers to the slave’s master. How this will help with the proselytizing, I am not sure. I am not a biblical scholar however so I could be completely wrong.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

When he talks about women policing other women within a Biblical context, I can’t help but think back to A Handmaid’s Tale. Perhaps Dalrock didn’t understand that Atwood’s novel was not historical fiction?

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

I read 2 Titus 9:10 as being directed towards the slaves, and is intended as a way to get slaves to be more effective at preaching to their masters. The idea seems to be that if a master owns multiple slaves but one of them is entirely obedient, trustworthy and never steals at all, then the master might be willing to listen to that slave when they talk to them about religion.

It makes sense in the context of the section, which is all about “be a fine upstanding person so that you can evangelise more effectively and so Christianity gets a good image.”

Chrysler
Chrysler
5 years ago

“In a properly functioning society, much if not most of the day to day policing of female behavior is done by women, and this is a biblical role.”

Guess he thought The Handmaid’s Tale was a utopia…

chaltab
chaltab
5 years ago

@Snowberry – Since passage 10 is a continuation of the sentence started in passage 9, I believe the “them” refers to the slave’s master. How this will help with the proselytizing, I am not sure. I am not a biblical scholar however so I could be completely wrong.

There’s a lot of context lost in the past 1900+ years, but with a lot of these sorts of passages you have to keep in mind the situation of the first and second centuries. Roman polytheism was still the dominant religion, and even when Christians weren’t being outright persecuted, there was a lot of bad-mouthing and malicious rumors being spread.

Christians were often seen as deviants and threats to the Roman way of life, which was extremely patriarchal and hierarchical. So while doctrinally, Christians were taught that all people were equal in Christ, socially, they were instructed to obey the letter of Roman social norms so that the Church would not be seen as obscene or shameful.

Of course now patriarchal Christians act like these recommendations for avoiding scandal and persecution were meant to be immutable laws of human interaction that we should continue to follow more than 1500 years after Roman polytheism fell. I don’t think any species is as good at missing the point as humanity.

rugbyyogi
5 years ago

@Kat – yep, I struggled with that one, too – and with the faithful child who had to sit around and watch the celebrations when the prodigal son returned (I just knew prodigal boy was gonna backslide). And how about a “Hey, thanks Martha for making a nice meal. Without your work, we wouldn’t have been able to sit around and discuss spiritual things. Peter and Bartholomew are gonna do all the washing up.”?

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

You wanna talk Biblical, Dalrock? Bitch please.

1 Timothy 5 verse 2: Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.

http://media.giphy.com/media/XOQmDUMyfzVza/giphy.gif

Catalpa
Catalpa
5 years ago

RE: the story of Martha

During the engineering initiation ceremony thing that I went through near the end of my degree, we got told about the story of Martha and Mary and about how engineers have considered themselves “children of Martha”, in that we’re here to get the baseline shit accomplished. It’s our job to design, implement, and maintain all the mundane physical trappings of civilization, to give non-engineers/’children of Mary’ the opportunity to tackle the more philosophical/theoretical issues that crop up.

I found it an interesting outlook, if nothing else.

guest
guest
5 years ago

Wow, Catalpa, you actually did that? I’m a civil engineer, but never did the Iron Ring thing, only read about it. And for those of you who haven’t seen it yet:

http://www.online-literature.com/kipling/920/

f1ver10
f1ver10
5 years ago

[Insert witty reply noting that the bible also says horrible “such and such”, and that if that’s your guide to a moral compass, maybe it’s time to go out and get a new one]

The saddest thing about these people is that they’re so insecure in their own beliefs they will just spin on a dime if it suits the next misogynist bs they spout.

In this instance, it’s -men’s- failings that women supposedly act badly. Another time they will say (and it has been said, a lot) that women are 100% responsible for their own actions.
What makes one mature (i.e. a man, not a boy) is the realisation that -all- dichotomies are false dichotomies. Nuance is a fact of nature, and getting a deeper understanding of that leads to a less stressed life of always putting blame on one party or another.

sn0rkmaiden
5 years ago

We’ve got hacktivism and slacktovism, how can we can combine activism with endless talking shit about women on web sites full of circle jerkers?

Carptovism? Actowhingism?

Catalpa
Catalpa
5 years ago

@Guest

Yup, that was a part of the Iron Ring ceremony, or at least the one that I had. (I left out the name because we’re sort of customarily not supposed to talk about what happened during it.) I’m not sure if the whole poem got read out, but definitely part of it was.

scarlettpipstrelle
5 years ago

Ugh. Takes me back to a sort of theological fad that I heard about from Evangelical Christian friends back in the 80s. http://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-theology.html

Some things need to stay in the past.

BritterSweet
5 years ago

The quotes, I suppose, are not too far off considering how these abuse advocates would define “bad behavior in women,” and “the truth.”

Kootiepatra
5 years ago

*Dons theology nerd hat* (feel free to skip if theology nerdery is not your thing)

Something else to keep in mind with Titus: Paul is writing to the leader of a church in Crete. Paul starts this letter off by quoting one of Crete’s own poets, who described the people of Crete as being lazy, gluttonous liars—and was apparently right. Basically, Paul’s trying to get the entire church to get their act together, to actually work, be responsible, and take care of their household affairs. And yep, his instructions conformed to the gender roles of his day, because he wasn’t really trying to revolutionize the cultural hierarchy as much as he was trying to get the Christian community (men and women both) to act like grownups.

Paul’s relationship with his culture was a complex one. Besides his status as a Roman citizen, Paul was a Jew who ended up working largely with Gentiles, and he had to navigate those different cultural spheres with grace. There are places where he pushed back really hard against the culture of the day—especially when it came to the idea that cultural practices, such as keeping the Sabbath, circumcision, new moons, feasts, etc., had any bearing on one’s standing before God. He even chewed out the Apostle Peter over it (Gal 2:11). He declared that there was no more meaningful distinction between Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free in Christ (Gal 3:28). All people were of equal standing before God, and he would fight tooth and nail against anyone who tried to impose their own culture on another in the name of spirituality.

But on the other hand, he speaks of being “all things to all people” (1Cor 9:22), accommodating Jewish and Gentile sensibilities while he was with them, in order to not cause needless offense. When in Jerusalem, Paul made offerings and paid vows in the temple to demonstrate that he was still an observant Jew and was not trying to destroy Judaism. When among Gentiles, Paul hung out with them and ate with them freely, without getting weird about their non-Kosher ways. His priority was to introduce people to Christ, and he was willing to make all kinds of concessions to the culture he was in to facilitate that message.

Also, the writing of Titus was shortly after Paul had been released from his first imprisonment, and shortly before Nero began seriously persecuting Christians en masse. Things were politically precarious for the church at that time, and Paul was eager to not give the Roman authorities any reason to think ill of the young movement. Calling for an upending of the explicitly patriarchal Roman family structure could have easily been seen as sedition. @chaltab summed this up well in their comment above.

I have deleted a bunch of teal deers already, so I should probably stop. But this stuff is my jam.

*doffs theology nerd hat*

tl;dr – The MRA above is (unsurprisingly) spectacularly missing the point of this passage.

delphi_ote
delphi_ote
5 years ago

“Then there’s Luke 10:38-42, where Jesus explicitly says that for women, spiritual development is much more important and lasting than keeping house.”

I’m an atheist, but this shit drives me crazy. We have a contradiction, right? Two different verses in two different books have different things to say about women’s role in society.

One of them is supposed to be FROM JESUS HIMSELF and the other is a letter supposedly written by Paul. And evangelicals take PAUL’S version seriously. We have God incarnate’s own words or… some guy who never even met Jesus? Who cares what Paul wrote?!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Delphi & Kootiepatra

Who cares what Paul wrote?!

As you peeps will know there were essentially 3 models of proto-Christianity. That of James, Peter and Paul. Paul’s brand had more universal appeal. It was nice and easy, you didn’t have to do any of the silly diet stuff or get circumcised and it was politically non threatening to the established order.

In those circumstances, it’s perhaps not surprising that Paul’s version ‘won’ as it were.

skiriki
5 years ago

@Kat:

I’ve actually always felt sympathetic toward Martha because she was working hard in the kitchen. How about a solution that works for everyone?

Welp, if it happened today… “Hey folks, come and give a hand. You, John, could you set the table, Luke, bread is that way, be a dear and slice it, and Jesus, get the wine out… Afterward, we’ll do dishes together.”

@scarlettpipstrelle — I’m sad to say but Dominionism is alive and well and sort of growing too.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

How about a solution that works for everyone?

Dining out is the obvious solution; but than can prove expensive. It could cost up to 30 pieces of silver at a decent restaurant, and where’s a bunch of fishermen expected to get that sort of cash?

Mortarius
Mortarius
5 years ago

@Snorkmaiden: Jacktoivsm (or Jackdoffvism)?

Mortarius
Mortarius
5 years ago

@Bina

Certainly a lack of actual women, Gizmodo’s data analysis shows there were perhaps a few thousand women to millions of men.

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

“Then, three data fields changed everything. The first field, called mail_last_time, contained a timestamp indicating the last time a member checked the messages in their Ashley Madison inbox. If a person never checked their inbox, the field was blank. But even if they’d checked their messages only once, the field contained a date and time. About two-thirds of the men, or 20.2 million of them, had checked the messages in their accounts at least once. But only 1,492 women had ever checked their messages. It was a serious anomaly.”

sn0rkmaiden
5 years ago

@ Mortarius,

I like ‘jackofftivism’, that sums up what these guys do very well.

LG.
LG.
5 years ago

Am I the only one who thinks Jesus was just being a narcissistic cult-leader dickhead when he was all, “Spiritual development is more important for women! But not for you, Martha. You keep making us food. By yourself.” Sort of showing who was and wasn’t in his favor at the moment, as cult leaders do…

Pat
Pat
5 years ago

Typical manospherian poster: “Womenz sux (bunch of juvenile pejoratives).”

Female poster: “Hi.”

Typical manospherian retort: “YOU SUCK DIX!! Can’t foool me b*tches. Haw haw haw.”

Female poster:”Why do you think women don’t like you?”

Typical manospherian retort: “Isn’t it obivious?!? BECAUSE I’M TOO NICE stoopid b*tch!!”

serrana
5 years ago

I like “jackofftivism” too, or how about “setbacktivism”?

LG.
LG.
5 years ago

Hmmm…kind of seems to me like “jackofftivism” implies, specifically, acts that are basically self-pleasuring while “setbacktivism” is more appropriate for bigoted, reactionary acts.

guest
guest
5 years ago

@catalpa–did you go to school in Canada? ISTR that is more Canadian than US thing, for some reason.

Pat
Pat
5 years ago

This is some funny dialogue, just read at TRM:
“But why the disgust and insults?”
Can I take a stab at answering that?
It’s to scare the pussies away. It’s masculine talk.”

Yes indeed. I can envision it now.

Leonardo da Vinci: “You stupid f*ckers won’t get no puzzy that way! These b*tches need to know they are fungible else they’ll give you no respect. That gets those puzzies wet, you dumb mudder f*ckers.”
(wash, rinse, repeat for Plato, Mozart, Newton…)

Pat
Pat
5 years ago

Beware the dire, repetitive internet obscenities. Those overused…five or so words are the “manly” way to scare people away.

Ellesar
Ellesar
5 years ago

I am the first person to encourage the CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of some women’s behaviour. I was in a relationship with a woman who was violent and abusive in every other way, and that broke the silence to some extent that many lesbians around me had maintained about abusive women.
But there is no comparison to this attitude. There is nothing constructive about it – and it is certainly not about encouraging an equal relationship.

Catalpa
Catalpa
5 years ago

@Guest

I was born, graduated, and currently live in Canada, yes. I don’t know if many/any non-Canadian universities do an Iron Ring Ceremony.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Pat | August 30, 2015 at 2:30 pm
Leonardo da Vinci: “You stupid f*ckers won’t get no puzzy that way! These b*tches need to know they are fungible else they’ll give you no respect. That gets those puzzies wet, you dumb mudder f*ckers.”
(wash, rinse, repeat for Plato, Mozart, Newton…)

Didn’t Da Vinci have gay lovers?

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Hugs, Ellesar. Having the courage to break the silence over something like that is badass as fuck. Consider yourself duly adulated.

@Kootiepatra:
Your theology teal dearing is really interesting. I’d be interested in hearing more. One of the things I’ve been reading recently has been Richard Carrier’s work comparing the Petrine and Pauline early churches and their influence upon the various thinkers who eventually went on to formulate the Nicene Creed. It’s a fascinating bit of history that’s comparatively understudied considering how important its effects were.