Sic Est.

"Feminism is not an inclusive human rights movement but a partisan exercise in exclusion"https://t.co/QhCvFpwtTa

— Gender Studies for Men (@JohnDavisJDLLM) October 12, 2020

Something Is Out of Sorts...

"Red-pilled women" taking over leadership.

Consider joining Regarding Men, a one-of-a-kind online community exclusively for men to combat Red Pill isolation. We have 6 groups/week (to start), including one with yours truly (on Thurs. evenings) & a book club on men's issues classics coming soon. https://t.co/MxvHGQWfzT

— Janice Fiamengo (@JaniceFiamengo) August 12, 2020

Stand by Your Manhood

by Peter Lloyd

Review and interview.
The author sounds like an egalitarian or MRA kind of guy?

The denigration of men: Ridiculed, abused, exploited - the triumph of feminism has made today's men second class citizens, argues a deliciously provocative new book. And it's time the chaps fought back!
Fathers 4 Justice

Girl Writes What

Karen Straughan: Gender Politics on the Offensive
Interview by Greg Scorzo

Her youtube channel.

Red Pill or Socon?

“Created for Greatness”: The Emerging Catholic Men’s Movement (via Insight Scoop)

No mention of feminism or misandry.

Related:
Portrait of a modern Delta

An acceptable way of being a man to these Catholic emangelists? Do they subscribe to the belief that there is a very wide ranger of being a man, and that there are no core attributes or ways of relating to the world and others that men should have?

Ed Driscoll Interviews Helen Smith

Helen Smith Talks Men on Strike - mp3

Amy Alkon Interviews Dr. Helen Smith

(via Dr. Helen) Dr. Helen Smith on how American society has become anti-male - mp3

Dalrock's Description of the Manosphere

"Androsphere" hasn't caught on yet... What is the Manosphere?

There is no reason why paleocons and tradcons can't be part of the discussion, instead of characterizing all of it as being the domain of PUAs and egalitarians. Their objections to libertinism noted, paleocons and tradcons still need to respond to the critique of Uhmerican society as being misandrist, and if they admit this fact, provide suggestions as to how men should respond. There are plenty in the manosphere who do not identify as paleo or trad but are Christian, uphold patriarchy and a more traditional model of society (i.e. one that recognizes sex differences and differentiation of roles).

Dr. Hirsch, "The Nexus of Energy and Risk in the 21st Century"

Misc.
MGTOW - Dalrock: Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?

The world you have made:

Of the people I know who have graduated college, less than half are gainfully employed. Worse, most of the ones who are employed are women. In my major, women made up the majority. 2/3 of them have jobs in the field. I’m unaware of another male I graduated with who has a job in it. Worse yet, a lot of the men like me doubled down and took extra concentrations and minors in with our degrees. Along with writing, I studied media/critical analysis and Public Relations. Essentially, I crammed an extra year into college into my four years to stay competitive in a competitive field.

As to whether the girls could write better, I must answer with a resounding “NO.” Their research papers, which I often proofread, took naive positions and failed to argue articulately whereas I typically chose an uphill position and argued it with robust reasoning and heavy sourcing. More than a few profs privately admitted my papers constructively challenged their world-views. So why, then, did the girls get the jobs? Surely companies want to hire better writers, particularly ones with GPAs above 3.5 and other honors associations, additional education and accreditation in the field, and a robust sense of communication and argumentation. (White women college grads are second only to Asian men in post-baccalaureate employment levels

It all comes down to the shifting corporate environment. A half century of government puppeteering, law suits, and sensitivity trainings have rendered companies deaf to reality. The corporate attitude takes no risks. The productivity of one man cannot compare to the financial risk that he might make an off-color remark that somehow triggers a woman to sue him and the company for supposedly subjecting her to his comment. The supreme irony is that, despite the playful joking attitudes of men in the workplace, women accomplish much less. Companies either willfully ignore this or are too scared to act on this fact.

And now, let’s return to what men have been doing. I call this the Scott Pilgrim phenomenon. Where men have encountered resistance to even their most sincere and dedicated efforts, they have assumed a fatalistic attitude towards achievement, especially since they have no family. With very few reasons to give more than a minimum hoot that they have accomplished nothing, they settle into the solipsistic world of drinking, video games, bad TV and other nonconstructive pursuits. (I grew up with video games and still enjoy them, however I treat it as I do TV and limit my use)

The truth is that when faced with difficulty and no rational cause to weather it, men retreat to the hibernation state and care only about basic comfort and enjoyment. Men, by nature, are not lazy. However, a combination of the “everybody’s special” culture, institutional resistance to their presence in the labor force, and the lack of real liabilities like a family hardly persuades men to better themselves and become more productive. The reason men marched into coal mines to do back-breaking labor had little to do with personal motivation and everything to do with familial provision.

Slow Food Quickens the Pace

The Trader Joe's Lesson: How to Pay a Living Wage and Still Make Money in Retail

A Prepper Series: The Lights Out Saga

We Are Made for Cooperation

Welmer on the Debate

Fire in the Manosphere

Lots of good comments...

MRAs and the Androsphere

Jack Donovan covers the differences (and overlap) between both: Long Live the Manosphere!

While there continues to be an overlap I will use the label MRM to refer to legal and political issues (e.g. divorce, visitation rights), but I am definitely not in agreement with the MRAs who are egalitarians.

Something from Catholic Land Movement: Community and the Church. Relatively easy to implement if you have some families interested in an agrarian vision of life and who are willing to settle in one place. What to do, though, about those who are trapped (or willing prisoners) in the big cities or suburbia?

Interview with GirlWritesWhat

The Men's Movement and the Continued Search for Equality -- An Interview with GirlWritesWhat


The androsphere is divided on the question of patriarchy - some just want "equality" (in conjunction with the acceptance of looser sexual mores) while others are advocating the restoration of patriarchy.

Related:
What Men Know that Women Dont - Full show of The World of Woman

Another Version of MGTOW

Captain Capitalism: The "Minimalism" Threat

If it were up to men, consumption spending would tank. We wouldn't be wasting our precious time (in the form of money) on doilies or Beanie Babies or "nice, matching furniture" or general crap that isn't needed. There would be an entertainment system, some dishes, some used furniture and that's about it. But don't think it would stop there. Our Spartan spending habits would have ramifications WELL beyond that of trinkets and doilies in the house. Notably, the house itself.

Control the money instead of letting the woman have control over it to fuel her consumerism, and if she balks, leave her.

Read the rest.

Men will have to organize on an informal basis, as official institutions (including the Church) fail to support them. Feminism is endorsed by the state and other holders of power, displacing men in favor of women, so men will have to avoid those institutions and do what they can on their own. Men's study groups? This morning I was thinking of the Christian base communities associated with liberation theology - just a Christianized version of the Marxist cell? But what was that but a perversion of the small communities of the early Church? If the Church will not support men, then will they have to turn to Marxists or anarchists for inspiration? I hope not.

And finally the cumulative effect of this veritable war waged on men - it's toll on our loyalty. I'm not talking loyalty to an employer. I'm talking loyalty to the country. I used to want to join the military and even to this day kick it around. But then I ask "who would I be protecting?" You see, all of the above really grinds mens' gears. We don't take kindly to being accused of automatic sexism, we don't like being enslaved to a government that does nothing more than take our money to bribe parasites into voting for more government, we don't like paying the taxes so you can play "pre-school teacher" and claim your 9 months a year job makes you an "independent adult," we don't take kindly to divorce (even though most of us haven't been), we don't take kindly to you ruining the industries we are predominantly employed in, we don't take kindly to the childish mind-games girls played on us during our teens and twenties, we don't take kindly to watching naive, spoiled, brats destroy the world's formerly greatest country and thusly steal our birthright and we get down right pissed when you start complaining that we're not "manning up" and choose to "sit on our asses all day playing X Box." Because when it comes to us men "investing" in this country be it buying property, starting a business, marrying, starting a family, whatever...


why should we?

See also the Hawaiian Libertarian's Tearing Up the Grass.

Hate or anger?

Begun on June 9.

In a recent show (May 11) of the Paul Youngblood Show, the men of the Rockford Institute were discussing identity politics. At the end of the second hour, Aaron Wolf was describing the mission of the institute and of Chronicles Magazine as an antidote to identity politics, enabling people to learn about American culture and traditions and to recover an American identity that will unite them once more. Dr. Fleming added that this course of action would prevent people from falling into the white power fantasy or the men's rights fantasy. He included these with other [special interest] groups and movements, like that for blacks, Hispanics, and gays -- all of these movements are based on hate. Is his characterization of the motivation of the people in either group correct? Are they just "hate groups," as the SPLC and other liberals would have us believe? (Of course the SPLC would deny this of the other groups while maintaining that it is an accurate characterization of white nationalists and the MRM.) As the show ended at that point, he was not able to elaborate. I have not listened to any of the following episodes yet, so I do not know if he clarified his point. (Edit. I don't believe he has.)

We need to distinguish between the emotion of hate (and the associated emotion of anger) from the act of the will, which is evil in itself. MRAs (and perhaps WNs too) are reacting at injustices that have been done to them or to those they know. They are not seeking preferential treatment or favoritism, just justice. (I do acknowledge that the homosexual lobby does make the same claim.)

Can the MRM be characterized as emotion-driven? I think there is a keen sense that the [legal] system is unjust and misandric. Now, anger and the emotion of hate can lead to problems if they are not subordinated to reason or if one lacks love/charity. Some men associated with the MRM may be bitter towards women or even misogynistic in their words and such; that much is obvious if you look at some comments on androsphere blogs. Wouldn't it be better to just say that certain attitudes are not beneficial to themselves or others or to warn them against indulging in anger rather than seeking some positive outlet? I think Dr. Fleming is still too dismissive of the movement and its goals of correcting the legal system. The effort may be futile, but it is not opposed to the sort of localism that he favors. How do we take the state out of marriage and the like and return power to the churches? And if the church (i.e. ecclesial community) is thoroughly feminized can it be trusted to look out for the interests of the family and of men? If a couple takes a vow only in church while eschewing the civil license, can the man still be held responsible by  the state and its divorce laws if they do decide to separate? If so, then what would be the point?

Finally, is preference of one's own identity group always accompanied by hatred of people who fall outside the group? Does Dr. Fleming believe this or is he making an exaggeration in order to make a point? Men should be welcome those who want to join them, but trust has to be earned and newcomers have to prove themselves. If people wish to separate, let them go their way, but one should not exclude others simply because they are of a different race or ethnicity. They have to actually show that they do not want to be part of the community. (In which case they should be warned and then accorded a different social status?) The ethnonationalists would hold that ethnicity/race/skin color is a legitimate distinction in the order of charity. "It is natural to prefer one's own kind," they say. I would maintain that love of the community and its members (civic friendship) is paramount, and ethnic origin should not be a consideration if all members of the community are truly members. One may try to justify such a preference on the base of genealogy (and hence "family" ties via genetic proximity), but I think this is a rather weak reason. Forming new alliances through marriage in order to strengthen the family and the community is better than excluding new "blood." Affinity through blood should matter only when you are actually aware that such a kinship exists, not when it is based on a DNA test.

Then there is the claim that one "naturally" wants children "who look like me." Even if that is your desire, by what right can you prevent someone else from marrying someone of a different ethnicity? Are you really going to ostracize such a person, even if he's lived up to his duties to you and the community? Are you really going to accuse him of being immoral because he does not want to keep the race "pure"? Some even say that the differentiation into races is divinely-ordained, and that God does not want interracial marriage. (Did those who supported anti-miscegenation laws make the same sort of argument?)

Looking for Mr. Big

Why women lose the dating game The author lumps the androsphere with the PUA/Game blogs, but at least she does give men a chance to give their side of things.

A brief dust-up between Dalrock (and some of his readers) and several contributors to Traditional Christianity. I have a mixed reaction to that and those involved. Is the use of the internet justified by its potential to reach a broader audience? Can it be used to achieve "critical mass" on fathers' and men's issues and effect changes in laws? Or would the time be better spent on strengthening kin groups and local communities?

Deti's warnings about women to avoid and slut tells.

Ron Paul, Stop V.A.W.A. & Title IV d

2008

(via a comment at The Spearhead)

Just remembered Blue Valentine -- mandatory watching for women for Valentine's Day? If they'd learn anything from it...

What is the manosphere?

One response:

It is her (and feminists) buzz-word used to lump groups with nothing in common together so they can be discredited based on their most extreme membership. “Manosphere” lumps in game hucksters, Conspiracy Nuts, Diet Enthusiasts, “Human Biodiversity” writers, White Nationals and others with Fathers Rights advocates and judicial reformers so they can be discredited.


Fidelbogen (google Counter-Feminist) wrote about this earlier last week and he may be correct that terms like MRM, MRA, and Manosphere should be abandoned by Fathers Rights and Judicial Reformers as they are tainted and poisoned terminology.

I think he is referring to this: Feminism Invented the "MRA Movement". (See also A Video Worth Watching.)

The original post is Dalrock's response to Elizabeth Duffy's column, about which I blogged here.

Peter Hitchens, MRA

From Don't forget, it takes a cynical knave to create a dodgy knight -

In the name of the fathers
I promise you that the supposed reforms aimed at giving divorced fathers more access to their children will not work. Our anti-fatherhood state and courts will simply fail to implement them.


And so our national tragedy drags on, with its growing millions of small victims.


Last week, Pennsylvania State University academics exploded the myth of the ‘good divorce’ and showed that children suffer however the parents behave.


The answer’s simple. More than 40 years ago a slapdash Parliament was lobbied by liberal fanatics into making divorce ridiculously easy.


Since then the courts have handed down a series of judgments furiously prejudiced against fathers and husbands.


Parliament has very little to do between now and the 2015 Election. It should put its back into a thoughtful and thorough recasting of the rules of divorce.


And that, surely, is a job for the bishops, instead of taking Trotskyist positions on welfare reform or rowing about the few dozen homosexuals who – bizarrely – wish to get married in churches.


If they really do, let them, provided the law also lets heterosexuals marry in gay clubs. I suspect the take-up will be about the same on both sides.

An alternative strategy

The right of disassociation as a form of punishment or self-protection or for the sake of integrity is something I should expand upon when I've collected my thoughts...

Some advocate MGTOW as a solution to Marriage 2.0. I think that families with traditional men should be preserving their strength, so that even if one is unable to find a decent woman to marry, he can contribute his resources to the extended family/clan and protect the children being raised in traditional marriages.