Manosphere Blogs

[TimelessTheist]

I just wanna get everyone's opinions on these things. I, personally like a few, such as the Spearhead and Dalrock, however, I find a some others, such as "Return of Kings" to be less about enforcing traditional gender roles, and more about just plain misogynism.

[Epoetker]

Return of Kings is definitely hit or miss depending on the author, as most general clearinghouse blogs are. The reason I also like The Spearhead and Dalrock most was mainly because they've been around long enough and their authors are smart and honest enough to moth maneuver through criticism and avoid relying on catch-all terms.

There is, additionally, no avoiding Roissy, and I advise taking the same tack he has: when the Manosphere truths are well and truly ingrained, shift toward a greater focus on general social criticism/neoreaction. Because accepting the truth is one thing, putting it into social structures once enough other people have accepted it is quite another. Lots of this work is taken up in correcting occasionally pernicious tendencies among neoreactionaries like IQ fetishism.

But always leave some free time for mocking Mr. Manboobz, as he most definitely deserves it:

[TimelessTheist]

Return of Kings is definitely hit or miss depending on the author, as most general clearinghouse blogs are.

Actually, I was mostly talking about their community beliefs. Such as "if women sleep around, they're sluts, but if men do the same, it's okay cause that's biology....somehow" Promiscuous behavior should not be tolerated in either gender, and, indeed, 'was' not tolerated in many ancient societies until recently. I mean, for a blog called "Return of Kings" they have to know that the norm for Medieval kings was 'not' to sleep with as many women as possible....in fact, it was the exact opposite.

I don't know, I find any website that has an entire section dedicated to "Game" to be retarded, not to mention the other infamous articles they've allowed on their site, such as the "Eating Disorder" one.

There is, additionally, no avoiding Roissy, and I advise taking the same tack he has: when the Manosphere truths are well and truly ingrained, shift toward a greater focus on general social criticism/neoreaction. Because accepting the truth is one thing, putting it into social structures once enough other people have accepted it is quite another. Lots of this work is taken up in correcting occasionally pernicious tendencies among neoreactionaries like IQ fetishism.

Yes, pretty much.

But always leave some free time for mocking Mr. Manboobz, as he most definitely deserves it:

Also yes.

[Darth Executor]

I don't like Return of Kings and Roosh routinely comes off as a whiny crybaby. I only read Heartiste regularly because of the high entertainment value (plus he occasionally posts a study that's bound to cause extreme butthurt among liberals which is always useful). I've read Dalrock on occasion but manosphere stuff generally just doesn't interest me.

[TimelessTheist]

I don't like Return of Kings and Roosh routinely comes off as a whiny crybaby. I only read Heartiste regularly because of the high entertainment value (plus he occasionally posts a study that's bound to cause extreme butthurt among liberals which is always useful). I've read Dalrock on occasion but manosphere stuff generally just doesn't interest me.

Actually I forgot one. He doesn't actually count as a Manosphere blogger, but he shares similar views with them: Ramzpaul. Anyone who can piss off the SPLC 'that' much is good in my book.

[Epoetker]

"if women sleep around, they're sluts, but if men do the same, it's okay cause that's biology....somehow"

It's a stereotype, not a moral imperative. If all the women are competing with the same few high-status guys, then the meaning of the stereotype (and the full effect of how it became a stereotype) generally becomes clearer. F. Roger Devlin is not to be sneezed at for his high-level analysis of where the tendency has actually led.

[TimelessTheist]

It's a stereotype, not a moral imperative. If all the women are competing with the same few high-status guys, then the meaning of the stereotype (and the full effect of how it became a stereotype) generally becomes clearer. F. Roger Devlin is not to be sneezed at for his high-level analysis of where the tendency has actually led.

I don't get it. If it's a stereotype, why is it listed in their list of beliefs? I agree with a lot of their other beliefs, such as men are the superior gender for things like military service and tasking, physical labor, and patriarchy is the best form of government, and things like that, but a 'lot' of stuff they put up on that site is just horrible....such as the previously mentioned "eating disorder" article.

[Epoetker]

I don't get it. If it's a stereotype, why is it listed in their list of beliefs? I agree with a lot of their other beliefs, such as men are the superior gender for things like military service and tasking, physical labor, and patriarchy is the best form of government, and things like that, but a 'lot' of stuff they put up on that site is just horrible....such as the previously mentioned "eating disorder" article.

If you wish to get these questions answered before asked, always read my links:

consider the premise of their argument, the double standard. Like most influential falsehoods, it involves a distortion, rather than a mere negation, of an important truth. It is plausible, and hence dangerous, because it resembles that truth.

In fact, men have never been encouraged to go about seeking casual sex with multiple women. How could any sane society encourage such behavior? The results are inevitable and obvious: abandoned women and fatherless children who are a financial burden on innocent third parties. Accordingly, promiscuous men have traditionally been regarded as dissolute, dangerous, and dishonorable. They have been called by names such as “libertine” or “rake.” The traditional rule of sexual conduct has been chastity outside of marriage, faithfulness within—for both sexes.

But in one sense there was undoubtedly a double standard: A sexual indiscretion, whether fornication or adultery, has usually been regarded as a more serious matter in a woman than in a man, and socially sanctioned punishments for it have often been greater. In other words, while both sexes were supposed to practice monogamy, it was considered especially important for women to do so. Why is this?

In the first place, they tend to be better at it. This is not due to any moral superiority of the female, as many men are pleased to believe, but to their lower levels of testosterone and their slower sexual cycle: ovulation at the rate of one gamete per month.

Second, if women are all monogamous, the men will perforce be monogamous anyway: It is arithmetically impossible for polygamy to be the norm for men throughout a society because of the human sex ratio at birth.

Third, the private nature of the sexual act and the nine-month human gestation period mean that, while there is not normally doubt as to who the mother of a particular baby is, there may well be doubt regarding the father. Female fidelity is necessary to assure the husband that his wife’s children are also his.

Fourth, women are, next to children, the main beneficiaries of marriage. Most men work their lives away at jobs they do not much care for in order to support wife and family. For women, marriage coincides with economic rationality; for a man, going to a prostitute is a better deal. Accordingly, chastity before marriage and fidelity within it are the very least a woman owes her husband. Indeed, on the traditional view, she owes him a great deal more. She is to make a home for him, return gratitude and loyalty for his support of her, and accept his position as head of the family.

Traditional concern for fallen women does not imply there are no “fallen men.” Fornication is usually a sin of weakness, and undoubtedly many men who fall into it feel ashamed. The real double standard here is that few bother to sympathize with those men. Both men and women are more inclined to pity women. Some of the greatest male novelists of the nineteenth century devoted their best labors to the sympathetic portrayal of adulteresses. Men, by contrast, are expected to take full responsibility for their actions, no questions asked. In other words, this double standard favors women. So do most traditional sex roles, such as exclusively male liability to military service. The female responsibility to be the primary enforcer of monogamy is something of an exception.

What, after all, is the alternative to the double standard? Is it practical to give sexually desperate young men exclusive responsibility to ensure no act of fornication ever takes place? Or should women be locked up to make it impossible? Logically, a woman must either have no mate, one mate, or more than one mate. The first two choices are socially accepted; the third is not. Such disapproval involves no coercion, however. Women who insist on mating with multiple men may do so. But they are responsible for that behavior and its consequences.

Women’s complaints about double standards refer only to the few which seem to favor men. They unhesitatingly take advantage of those which favor themselves. Wives in modern, two-income marriages, for example, typically assume that “what I earn is mine; what he earns is ours.” Young women insist on their “independence,” but assume they are entitled to male protection should things get sticky.

But the ultimate expression of modern female hypocrisy is the assertion of a right to adultery for women only. This view is clearly implied in much contemporary self-help literature aimed at women. Titles like Get Rid of Him and Ditch That Jerk are found side-by-side Men Who Can’t Love: How to Recognize a Commitmentphobic Man. In short, I demand loyalty from you, but you have no right to expect it of me. Many women seem sincerely unable to sense a contradiction here. Modern woman wants the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities; she wants a man to marry her without her having to marry the man. It is the eternal dream of irresponsible freedom: In the feminist formulation, freedom for women, responsibility for men.

Men usually accept that their demand for faithfulness from their wives entails a reciprocal duty of faithfulness to their wives. In fact, I am inclined to believe most men lay too much stress on this. For a man, fidelity in marriage should be a matter of preserving his own honor and ensuring that he is able to be a proper father to all his children; his wife’s feelings are a secondary matter, as are his own. In any case, the marriage vow is carefully formulated to enunciate a reciprocity of obligations; both the man and woman pledge faithfulness for life. Given innate sex differences, it is not possible to eliminate the double standard any more than marriage already has.

[TimelessTheist]

If you wish to get these questions answered before asked, always read my links:

Well, I understand where the stereotype comes from, what I don't understand is why they put it in their list of beliefs....unless of course, they actually believe that men should have sex all they want and women shouldn't, which is stupid.

[Darth Executor]

Well, I understand where the stereotype comes from, what I don't understand is why they put it in their list of beliefs....unless of course, they actually believe that men should have sex all they want and women shouldn't, which is stupid.

1. They're not Christian.
2. Why is it stupid? Isn't that how people behaved (with God's permission) in the OT? Men could have more wives (and thus more sexual partners) but women couldn't?

[TimelessTheist]

1. They're not Christian.
2. Why is it stupid? Isn't that how people behaved (with God's permission) in the OT? Men could have more wives (and thus more sexual partners) but women couldn't?

1) Well, still, they mention "the family unit" in their beliefs, and in many of their posts, so one would think that's contradictory.
2) Eh, I think you need to read it a little closer. God never gave any of those men permission.

[Darth Executor]

1) Well, still, they mention "the family unit" in their beliefs, and in many of their posts, so one would think that's contradictory.

Some think it's ok for men to get some on the side.

2) Eh, I think you need to read it a little closer. God never gave any of those men permission.

God gave David many wives. To say nothing of the holy men who apparently never heard once of this prohibition, nor is it mentioned anywhere. God certainly didn't seem to have been too broken up about it since nobody was ever punished for polygamy.

[TimelessTheist]

Some think it's ok for men to get some on the side.

And those men would be wrong.

God gave David many wives. To say nothing of the holy men who apparently never heard once of this prohibition, nor is it mentioned anywhere. God certainly didn't seem to have been too broken up about it since nobody was ever punished for polygamy.

Eh, well, I might've jumped the gun on that one. God may have allowed it due to certain conditions, such as a lack of marriageable men, and thus, this would provide protection and shelter to the women, but there are cases where this clearly wasn't, such as with Solomon and his 300 wives....and he eventually fell into idolatry. As for the other ones, well, Jacob was actually tricked into marrying the other wife, and Abraham only had a concubine because his wife was sterile.

[Epoetker]

Polygamy happened in most pre-modern societies because wives needed husbands more than husbands needed wives. That and the whole thing with large amounts of young men dying in things like war, natural disasters, etc.

Royal polygamy most certainly did have both its practical and divine limits, as in the case of Solomon, whose seven hundred wives most certainly did turn him away from both God and his fellow Israelites in late life. And when kings overstepped their bounds to take other men's wives, you most certainly heard from both the human and divine about it, as in the caase of David and Bathsheba.

None of these cases apply today, to put it mildly.

Addendum: it's looking like Mr. Manboobz deserves much less mocking derision and much, much more cold hatred than I originally thought.

[tabibito]

Solomon and his 300 wives....and he eventually fell into idolatry.

There was the violation of the rule to not marry outsiders because of that very risk before the wisest of men decided to do it.