Unmasking Feminism has gone dark, after some protracted fighting between "anti-feminism" female bloggers and commentators. What's the real story? What internet persona is real? Maybe it's the nature of blogging (as opposed to paid writing) that it attracts certain kinds of people - especially if it becomes a popularity contest. (Paid writing, too, has its problems, and it is not free from narcissism.) We shouldn't generalize about women and an inability to check themselves, should we? Or how such drama results when order is not imposed by men?
There may be a few who can be moral teachers to others, but how much talking is necessary? (I think that point made by Matt Forney is valid.) Some learning or reacquiring of a traditional moral system is necessary but this book-learning (or internet-learning) is not enough - it must be practiced. Some men may enjoy being groupies of female "traditionalist" bloggers; others may be looking for a more acceptable "outlet" to spread their ideas, which they can encourage women to read without seeming "bigoted" or "limited." Well, this latest fracas seems to have taken out two anti-feminism blogs, which is unfortunate, especially since Unmasking Feminism had a treasure of historical material.
What sort of books does the androsphere need to produce? There seem to be enough guides for dating and the like. There are a few MRM looking at divorce, legal misandry, and so on. Dalrock should write a book on the decline of marriage and the reasons why, perhaps. Some ethical and political treatises that explicitly deal with questions of patriarchy? What else? Then blogs can become more like internet fora, though these would become less necessary if traditionalists would network with people in "real life."