I’m starting a series that I’ve been wanting to write for some time. The manosphere claims to be about the promotion of patriarchy and masculinity as the pinnacles of manhood, but the tactics they use and the opinions they share are lefitst and they are effeminate. Over the course of this series, I will discuss various common misconceptions of masculinity and femininity, as it pertains to the manosphere and to Christianity. In the process I will show that:
Many claims of patriarchy and masculinity are empty bravado and posturing.
The Statue
There are a lot of engineering types in the manosphere, as well as lawyers, psychs, and insurance types. These are not who you normally think of as paragons of masculinity. But a few men have the physical attractiveness to pull off 10 out of 10 masculinity scores.
Ivan Throne is a self-proclaimed philosopher and “financial industry professional” as a senior project and program manager for a financial services industry over two decades. In other words, he more-or-less has the same credentials that I do, with the bonus that he is in the class of non-anonymous men who have published works (a trend I noted years ago in “Anonymity and Authorship“). Before he got permanently suspended from Twitter, he made this infamous comment about a certain statue:
We’ve all run into men in articles and forums who speak with this kind of superlative, hyperbolic bravado. This extreme level of overconfidence is the male equivalent of “YOU GO GIRL!” “Men of the West fight for real attractive women, not those fat ugly women! Men understand the perfection to be found in a beautiful Western woman!”
Then in walks one Rollo Tomassi—the Red Pill’s own Rational Male—to add to the discussion. Rollo is among the most famous members of the manosphere. He is, arguably, its Godfather.
Knowing what you know about the manosphere and its views on masculinity, what do you think Rollo is going to say in response to Throne? I promise that you won’t be surprised:
Truly, how could any woman even remotely comprehend the act of worship that a man has for the female form, the passion in which a man respects the beauty of the feminine? What do you think?
….
….
….
….
The statue of the perfect Western woman that only a male sculptor could make? It was made by a Chinese woman named Luo Li Rong.
Masculinity
I’m opening this series with this pie-in-the-face moment because it highlights a trend that I’ve seen throughout the manosphere: there is no clear, rational, non-contradictory definition of what masculinity is. For the Rational Male™ to make such a comical mistake underscores the fragility of his philosophy. He can’t comprehend the world that differs from the one that he created in his head, even though that world actually exists.
These men take themselves deeply seriously, but to outsiders they are ridiculous fools. Our resident expert (I’m not being sarcastic) said it best:
Throughout most of history, it was the female who “worshiped” her lord husband. But for Throne and Tomassi, only the male is even capable of showing that kind of worship. Those two were strutting like peacocks before a peahen, and they were shown to be ridiculous. They lost the dance for a mate, and they will continue to do so:
In the fight for a mate, most of the birds are losers.
In birds, it is the male who is the most beautiful, who struts and preens, competing with the other males to attract that one female. In humans, it is the female who decorates herself with finery and competes with the other females for that one prime male. Now you can see why when men in the manosphere, paragons of masculinity, crowd together in social cliques to compete for that one unicorn, they look very, very unmasculine to observers.
In traditional patriarchal societies, a man had authority over his own domain. You didn’t dare command (or touch) another man’s wife or kids within his domain, lest that husband and father challenge you (e.g. in a duel, a fight, or a good old-fashioned public shaming). Unless you had a death wish. Violence is masculine, but applying it—or encouraging it—in a stupid manner makes you a stupid man: not all applications of masculinity are good all the time, a point that is apparently unclear.
Red Pill Patriarchy is a parody of patriarchy. Much of the modern Red Pill wisdom does not align with scripture or even with history (as with John Chrysostom). This is easily seen in Saint Dalrock’s piece “What if we acknowledged repentance and respected men who married single mothers?” (PDF) where he suggested the following policy (to the cheers of his audience):
Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?
We wouldn’t have to be cruel about it, just honest, humble, loving, and sincere. This would be incredibly powerful, and would set the couple (and therefore the children) up for a much greater chance of success. It would also go a long way to reducing any shortage (if there really is one) of Christian men willing to marry Christian single mothers.
This plan—to publicly shame single mothers publicly on their wedding day—is extremely insulting to the idea of Patriarchy. In a comment on my article “Judgy Judges Judging“, Boxer nailed it:
Without the right of paterfamilias to take into marriage anyone he wants, then there is no paterfamilias. There is no patriarchy without the paterfamilias.
The minute a man decides to marry a skank-ho single mom, she is no longer a skank-ho single mom. She becomes the honorable affianced of the paterfamilias, and one can not occupy both of those roles at the same time.
A public declaration of the “sin” of the wife would be an insult to the man who marries this woman, aside from being ridiculous. One might evade shame with a wedding, but s/he doesn’t evade “sin” this way. If sin is a private matter, and repentance is possible without an earthly mediator, then there’s no way of knowing who has or hasn’t really repented anyhow.
The bottom line is that by doing what Dalrock suggests, one negates the whole concept of patriarchy. I know his heart might be in the right place, but ask yourself if any such thing (announcing all the past misdeeds at a wedding celebration) ever was customary in classical antiquity (either among the Jews, Greeks, Romans or anyone else). No authentic patriarchal culture ever had that as a more, and for obvious reasons.
I said something similar to Sharkly about his weak-form patriarchy, which at its core disrespects patriarchal men. So concerned are the “patriarchal” men with nagging women (and their husbands), that they’ve merely turned into old women talking about men with the sexes reversed.
Man Up! Woman Up?
It is my assertion that, in general, the Red Pill and the manosphere want a form of limited patriarchy where women are completely subservient and controlled by men, but without the duties and responsibilities that would inherently fall on a paterfamilias by the mere nature of his position. This is indistinguishable from the endless line of feminists who argue for the same thing with the sexes reversed:
This (ex-)wife embraced the man’s responsibility in Ephesians 5 while neglecting the man’s authority in 1 Corinthians 7. The manosphere/Red-Pill stresses more-or-less the reverse.
Lily B. was essentially telling her husband to “Man Up.” “Man Up” is the aphorism for the duties of man under the Law of God. There is nothing wrong with this: all men should man up, especially patriarchal men. I once said something similar:
Telling a man to “Man up” is perhaps the least offensive thing a feminist can do. It is, arguable, a rather plain, but grudging, acknowledgment that he should be in authority and she shouldn’t, regardless of what else she says or does.
The problem, of course, with “Man Up” is that it is typically paired with the implication that women are exempt from their duties, as perfectly illustrated in Lily B.’s comment. But the lack of femininity in a wife does not justify a lack of masculinity in her husband, nor does the lack of femininity in a wife justify husbands acting like women. Manning up is good advice. Telling wives that they are exempt from biblical wifehood and motherhood is bad advice that may well lead to divorce.
I simply don’t find men who preach about patriarchy convincing when they look like complaining women, just with the sexes reversed. If your idea of masculinity is males doing what females do, how is that masculinity? Fighting “Man-Up” just makes you a male Lily B. who also isn’t going to budge an inch until the problem with the other sex is completely resolved. If your behavior as a man depends on what your wife’s behavior is, you are likely in a stalemate.
As this series continues, I will show how black and white thinking of femininity and masculinity are errors. Sexual dimorphism simply does not work in such a strict binary mode, and attempting to shoehorn this philosophy it into reality results in silly things like the above. Make no mistake, Throne’s and Tomassi’s pie-in-the-face was no freak accident.
”I’m starting a series that I’ve been wanting to write for some time. The manosphere claims to be about the promotion of patriarchy and masculinity as the pinnacles of manhood, but the tactics they use and the opinions they share are lefitst and they are effeminate. Over the course of this series, I will discuss various common misconceptions of masculinity and femininity, as it pertains to the manosphere and to Christianity. In the process I will show that:
Many claims of patriarchy and masculinity are empty bravado and posturing.”
This is what (uncle )BOB Wallace(treehouse of fun) was saying @Dalrock and Sunshine Marys sites back in ’12/’13 with essentially GBFM& EARL also saying it with him.
The manosphere as a whole didn’t listen, did it?
”There are a lot of engineering types in the manosphere, as well as lawyers, psychs, and insurance types. These are not who you normally think of as paragons of masculinity. But a few men have the physical attractiveness to pull off 10 out of 10 masculinity scores. ”
Yet too many claim they are in better or the same shape, stronger, and have more stamina than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Lou Ferrigno had in their physical professional bodybuilding prime in the 1970s.
In the fight for a mate, most of the birds are losers.
”In birds, it is the male who is the most beautiful, who struts and preens, competing with the other males to attract that one female.”
This to a certain extent is the essence or the foundation of ”game” i.e. ”peacocking”-which i,Lastmod, and LIZ have seen too much, especially over the last few years.
”In traditional patriarchal societies, a man had authority over his own domain. You didn’t dare command (or touch) another man’s wife or kids within his domain, lest that husband and father challenge you (e.g. in a duel, a fight, or a good old-fashioned public shaming). Unless you had a death wish. Violence is masculine, but applying it—or encouraging it—in a stupid manner makes you a stupid man: not all applications of masculinity are good all the time, a point that is apparently unclear.”
This is true even in my distant past as a young boy with my first girlfriend at school when our teacher made her cry one day telling us to do a class activity during our free time we had to be together at recess every day, and i felt a rage or violent urge come all over me as i had never felt before, but i said and did nothing in response to it mostly as not to academically harm my girlfriend.
This post is nonsense. You have chosen to elect yourself more masculine than a bunch of men everyone thinks is more masculine than you, and to attack them along those lines. Can’t you see how that doesn’t allow rational discourse?
This isn’t even good enough to be effeminate, it is just childish.
Rather than tell us how much more manly you are, make an argument. Disprove something, demonstrate that the Rational Male books series have some epistemological flaw. Show us why you’re right and they are wrong.
But I guess you can’t. You can’t do it; not even if you wanted to. Which is why you’re stuck telling us how you think they are not manly.
Go ahead and defeat them intellectually Derek. That’s the only way you can get other men to respect you.
Textbook answer from the Man-O-Sphere
“but, but, what are you? Are you more manly! Prove it!!! OMG! You’e AMOGing! See? Look, he’s not answering MY question!”
No man is allowed to criticize *unless* he proves in an online forum of how “manly he is” and since he can’t logically do that over the Internet or up on the glass, then the usual crowd then jeers “He cant prove it!”
They are more upset that someone criticized the “brotherhood” (Rollo) more than anything else.
Lastmod,
Thank you for saying that. My post must have really touched a nerve to get that kind of outburst, and your comment really makes that clear. I couldn’t have said it better than you did.
The funny part about AA’s statement…
…is that the only thing I said about myself in that entire post was unironically self-deprecating:
Nobody thinks that all the hot 10 out of 10 girls madly lust after IT guys! It is hardly a ringing endorsement, which anyone who knows me should know. This is now the second time that AA demonstrates that he knows nothing about me or my motives.
The experts are almost unanimous that I’m definitely not masculine. Sharkly said that I’m a clown in my own home! I don’t need AA, Sharkly, or anyone else to think I’m manly, and I certainly don’t need to prove it to anyone. I don’t need emotional validation.
Do you know who is most well-known for seeking external group validation? Women. AA appeals to the very feminine-dominated tactics that I’m talking about.
Peace,
DR
In the end, the ‘sphere has turned into “you just got to want it, and if you dont get it….you just are lazy, not a real man, didnt put the work in, you pedestalize women, you love being miserable…”
It goes on. As I recall in the bible, Jesus and his disciples (all very imperfect men btw) were at the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus noticed an old woman putting a couple of copper coins in an offering box there. A couple of copper coins….gee, thanks? Didnt this woman understand that the temple requires provision, and lots of money to operate? Requires money to pay the priests? The scribes? The important people?
What good were her few or worthless tithe of a few copper coins?
Jesus said “she gave all she had” in his kingdom, giving all you have means to god means as as much as staggering intellect, right of birth, your looks or education. Jesus didnt mean she was better than people with more means. He didnt mean that people with more actually mean less to god. He was showing that giving your all to god or all you had meant as much to god as a person with better means, intellect and status. This woman was not noticed by anyone there, but she was by Jesus.
This is again how astute he was. Notice the small things in his actions, and teaching examples. A simple thing of a nameless, faceless old woman throwing a few pieces of copper into an offering box. She didnt get an “audience” with the priest. She didnt benefit personally from this offering. Her duty and faith to god in the end is what Jesus wants in *all* who are his followers.
This endless worship of secular men (Rollo, and Ivan here) by men who claim Jesus as “real manhood” demonstrate the modern nature of this faith.
I have stated many times that men need to be convinced of a savior, this Jesus. You cannot convince men of this when they are alone, shamed, belittled by men who profess this savior. How are you going to convice a man like Ivan that all his success in life is because of Jesus?
They can’t. So the usual tactic, blame all the weak “beta males” who are messing everything up.
There are people who can quote scripture, and there are people who *understand* it. You are the latter. Your challenge (and I say this as someone who had the same problem) is to let these people go. Spit them out. Realize that they don’t get to define what kind of man and Christian you are. You and God do. Be pleasing in His eyes, and who’s mockery can harm you? You’re going to have to get to that point, Jason, or the bitterness will swallow you up. It has to be done for you though, not for them. You. Because you matter as much, if not more, than they do.
Actually they do get define what a christian man is. I may understand a few scriptures, sure. I have come to part where its just a club, like any other. Some are a llowed, a few are tolerated….most have to strive and strve and study to the dissaproving eye of the rest of them and still not be allowed “in”
By the ‘sphere, a man can only be a christian if he was born into a devout family. Has lots of sex (manhood=sex), having a very high intellect for a provision, being deemed *hot* by the ladies, is a master at Game, and is deemed a “leader” by other men in his respected church, knowing his life’s mission and purpose by the time he is six or whatever, has a higher than average provision, is in the STEM field, has masculine hobbies (restoring classic cars is always mentioned), and of course….can defend his manhood by physical means….being able to fight any and all men a la “Street fighter” and win. Be an expert at some eastern martial art (never met so many masters in judo, tae kwon do in my life). Have a job / position in the church that “demands” respect (praise leader, a deacon, military veteran) . Make sure you are going to the gym six days a week, and if you are married you build one in the home so you can impress your wife and her friends. Have lots of children if you are married. Toss your wife or GF to the curb if she will not follow every order and instruction you tell her to the letter. Make sure you let everyone know that you can get plenty of women that are very attractive and young (even though you are in your fifties…because all men are wusses today, and women just want a man who is a”leader” and has “confidence” looks dont matter to them). Looks dont matter to women, but go to the gym, dress well, and look stylish (but looks dont matter to them)
It goes on for about forty more pages….I could write it if you want. Notice, this mostly is Game and PUA stuff…incorporated INTO christianty and deemed christian. I tried to stand up and was called “bitter” and “slanderous”
Inside the church and sphere I just got so weighed down with a gazillion donts and “youre wrong” and being told what I was. What I had to do. These men do get to decide. There is zero pushback and no bolts of lightening have struck any of them down. In fact, their Egos and stances are praised and rewarded.
So…..its a faith that is not for me. AS much as I tried belong, I wasnt allowed. I am not some reformer of the church, or leader or exceptional man.
Also, I dont need THESE men to tell me how to be a man. I was born one.
Yes, this exactly.
AA,
It’s actually quite clear that some highly respected paragons of masculinity made fools of themselves because they were spouting the Red Pill equivalent of psychobabble.
Tell me, what is the masculine thing to do when one’s own argument is self-defeating? Why do you dislike my pointing out their error, rather than address the error itself?
They disproved their own argument, and in doing so exposed the errors in their underlying axioms. I didn’t need to do anything other than report it. Rollo is doing a fine job uncovering his epistemological flaws all by himself. But, feel free to email me for a shipping address if you want to buy and mail me any of his books to review on this blog.
As for the rest of my arguments, they are straightforward and anyone could, if they wanted to, counter them. Go ahead, defend Saint Dalrock, argue against Saint Chrysostom, refute Brother Boxer, give me a biology lesson on birds, or tell me how the manosphere isn’t a sex-reversed Lily B.
Women complain, men make arguments, right?
This is, ironically, correct. People are free to respect (or disrespect me) based on my actual words and ideas. I too respect any man who uses his intellect to prove his points, rather than shrieking about unfairness and making weird and bizarrely unfounded personal claims about other people. You just pie your own face when you do that.
Peace,
DR
The manosphere’s great strength is also it’s fatal flaw: there does not exist a centralized set of beliefs that everyone can agree on, except in degrees. (Even hypergamy is countered with NAWALT) This has kept many enemies at bay who were seeking to scalp us as a whole, but it also leads to endless in-fighting over menial and redundant bullshit. In my mind the only honest man in the ‘sphere is Roosh, who converted and renounced his former ways and has, as the Act of Contrition says, amended his life. The rest of us (me included) are either grifting for shekels, lying to ourselves and others, or are simply never going to match the lofty ideals we hold for others (green line theory, anyone?). It’s all bullshit and so much time is wasted, over what, exactly? You tell me.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
This is why I made this post. You learn a lot about a person when they make a self-defeating argument. Do they double down? Do they try to hide? Or do they learn from their failure and make changes?
At first I was “Ah, yes…….the house of cards came down, everyone came on like Joshua…the walls came down and we have a man (Roosh) who moved back into mommys house and the mean press “wouldnt leave him alone!”
The Alpha of Alphas who all “told us how it was” moved back home with mommy. I did snicker a bit. “Just be manly bro!” I said to myself in a mocking way.
After several years of him indeed living his new walk……..and hes not packing convention centers, and doing low key speaking events and the like. I folded my arms and said “Okay, okay……..looks like he meant it”
Now? Aside of my criticisms of Orthodoxy (you have to be Russian to be in the Russian Orthodox church et al). I dont look up to him, nor do I really like him………but I admire the stances he has taken.
The Christian sphere worshipped him when he was a sinner, and now gladhands “that was a god thing / all of us were praying for him”
Notice they dont “quote” him anymore. He renounced and has DENOUNCED Game. He says at his speaking events “I have no advice about women” He removed and denounced all his past works. Honestly, I think the ‘sphere is a bit “let down” by his transformation. Like the Pahraisee, they wanted this Game Master and Leader to come on like Jesus, and “fix” the church.
His calling was indeed to “love god” and “repent” of his past. I say “good for him”
Over time, watching these online “debates” for years the (mostly self proclaimed) chads aren’t doing very well over time. ** I cannot think of an exception to this.
**examples available upon request.
Well Liz,
As you know first-hand. With many “bros” in the comment sections of the ‘sphere. You cant bring up any points. You will and must accept Game. Hypergamy. Frame. IOI’s. Carved-In-Stone rules, never changing female nature (unless, its their wife, their virginal daughter). Foolproof studies and statistics (I love when they show government / research stats from unis……oh, they “believe” the government and university studies now….).
You as a woman…they will tell you “you’re a woman and cant relate, or understand!!!!!” (exactly how a Feminist sqawks and clucks at any man who questions them). AS a man, if you bring up points or try to debate, again…like teenage girls….they will pile you and tell you how “Conditioned in Blue-Pilled / Simp thinking you are, and if you are ‘logical’ you will see how foolish you are.”
Game is their religion, and its crumbling because like the Book of Leviticus…so many rules, taboos, lore, stuff to remember, conditions, point-of-order, exceptions, codes, complex female socio-sexual biology, vocabulary, terms of classifying men…..colors of pills, a gazillion types of Game (dread, day, night, inner, long term)
All done in the name of getting a “nice girl to like you”
Again, they never had to do not even a tenth of what they are purporting to other men (esp younger) to do. They just woke up one day “and women just find me appealing bc of my frame, game. Just practice bro!! If it doesnt work, you like being miserable!”
Its like the Cultural Red Guards of Maos’ Cultural Revolution of the late 1960’s. All their maxims now are indeed codified and it looks like it never contradicts, and is infallible. Like the upper escheleons of said Red Guard. They of course….”dont have to follow these rules, or these ‘laws’ dont apply to them, they have this savior called Jesus….”
The ‘sphere will be the ones calling for the reeducation, imprisonment and exiling “the men messing up all of their foolproof scientific, proven studies”
Why? because in the end, their whole reason to live is the sex act, and how much, and how cool they are, and how many women would bed them if they were not married”
Neil Strauss renounced Game (and I read the book and I owned it. It made me more depressed, cause the foolproof methods didnt work). David DeAngelo is now a “motivational speaker” and no longer a Game pusher.
The sin of pride in this whole circle is deep. They cant let it go. It will fracture further in the end and be under the greater “MGTOW” umbrella. Smaller groups of men more isolated than ever and this current crowd of “red pill / real man christians” will become like their older Babay Boomers counterparts not understanding why “their simple methods men didnt like”
The delusion is so out of whack there. Im a former drug addict and I can see this.
“Smaller groups of men more isolated than ever”
For all their talk about “helping men”, they never seem interested in helping in this area.
Liz,
As I said on the other post, any attempt to artificially cheat the marriage market will result in a market that will try to arbitrage your marriage to death. Like getting fit, a number of the promoted strategies (e.g. Game; being attractive) may increase your odds of marriage, but they can also increase your odds of divorce. I think the testimonies of the Chads attests to that.
Bardeley’s,
I can’t say that men are being helped, and if Chad’s published failures are any indication, they are being actively harmed. I mostly try to avoid trying to actively and generically help them with non-biblical advice (except for divorce risk statistics). I prefer to help if they ask me first by reaching out over email, so that the interaction can be personal. One of the few pieces of advice that I’ve given (repeatedly) is to move. For example, don’t live in California, and join the Amish.
Robert Glover, of “No More Mr. Nice Guy” fame, recently started an online men’s group. It’s a little ham-fisted and you have to pay to join, but there are Zoom calls you can jump into almost around the clock, and they try to tackle some real problems men are facing. Not perfect by any means, but it beats “buy my book and good luck”. None of the gurus are willing to start a project that actually helps men. Much easier to a write a book, host a blog you can police, or hold a conference where you give a short lecture, maybe get some tail and bounce. Then you’re not accountable for the failures of your followers (true Red Pill haz never been implemented, bro). For all their alpha posturing, most men in the ‘sphere are cowards.
Pingback: Masculinity and the Manosphere: Part 2
I guess you could call this a “reflections on reading the ‘sphere for (only) 5 years” comment.
I discovered Dalrock’s by accident. I think it was linked by a traditional consevative website I read.
The theme at Dalrock’s seemed to be: “we already know men’s faults because the mainstream never stops talking about them. Let’s talk about women’s faults which the mainstream refuses to do.” This struck me as true then and still true. A lot of what Dalrock said made sense. Some of the blogs though have devolved into “women suck and it’s all their fault” not “men AND women suck.”
I never got into reading the “game” writers (aside from a few Rollo articles) because I have been in the same (my only) relationship for 30 years and have zero desire to pick up women.
I didn’t think the point of Rollo, Roosh and Roissy was to be “alpha’s alphas” or patriarchs. Their whole point seemed to be to fake “alpha” to fool women. I was never sure if they were even real or just lying grifters who didn’t want to get a real job.
Plenty of my fellow commenters didn’t seem to buy the “game” stuff. Deti just says if your in the 80% of unnattractive males you’re screwed. Jason says the same thing only he thinks his fellow comnenters are all alphas because we’re married. Scott said a beta who tries to look alpha ends up looking like a retarded strutting rooster. Sharkly seems to think it’s because women aren’t taught to revere men as their natural superiors. Did I come into the ‘sphere too late? There seems to be a diversity of opinion.
I’m tired and rambling. I’ll try to put together a coherent comment tomorrow.
Rubbish Cameron. Never said that. None believed that 80 / 20 thing five years ago in the sphere. None.
It came straight outta the Incel / Blackpill forums. They said it. Everyone called them lazy. Suddenly it became “cool” to say it and the Red Pill land claimed it. No one believes Oncels…they just need to shower, read Rollo and get some self confidence!
Red Pill land is soooo intellectual they are like university professors in a plastic bubble. They have zero idea what most men go through in these matters. It’s like in 1972. Nixon won by a decent landslide. The next day some big shot at the New York Times writes in the op-ed that “how can this be? I didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon”
Exactly.
The sphere….in general behaves “if you are not an Alpha you’re a Beta, and you might as well go and kill yourself because you ruined everything ”
If the marble doesn’t fall one way, it must fall the other. Their “logic” and stifling intellectualism is a club and a put off. They are always right. Git all the answers. Are better than you.
And 80% or more of men ain’t welcome, and that’s how they want it
Hi Jason.
I don’t know about the 80/20 specifically, but I’ve seen you many times call us men who are married “alphas” (because we were able to get married) and I’ve seen you claim most men are unnatractive and only the top men have much of a chance. If I misubderstood your comments then I apologize. In a way, they sounded like Deti’s to me – most men are unattractive and that dooms them relationship wise.
The 80/20 thing is a manosphere-nerd thing. They assume it follows a Pareto statistical distribution.
I don’t remember if you called us alphas or “top males” or attractive men but what was suggested was that because we’re married we’re clearly top men and this seems to suggest a form of the 80/20. Sorry if I misquoted you.
I think he often speaks in hyperbole or at least in generics. I believe he does this so that he doesn’t have to name names. Not everyone who is married in the manosphere “feels seen” by his comments.
There is a big difference between “you are a clown in your own home” and “manosphere married men are all ‘alphas’ who think they know everything.”
Good to see you, Cameron. 🙂
Good to see you too Liz! I was happy to see your son got married. I hope Mike and your other son are doing well too.
I hope I didn’t say anything that hurt you in the past. I’ve had a hard time coping with negative emotions, anxiety and depression. Someone (a woman actually!) helped me a lot with that.
“hope I didn’t say anything that hurt you in the past”
Not at all. On the contrary, Cameron.
Glad to hear things are going well.
Take care, stay warm!
🙂
To be fair, and honest. I have. But it was the only way to say it while trying to make a large swath of men understand because that is how they think: Alpha (good, strong ) Beta (evil, weak) Omega (loser) Sigma (highly intelligent, awesome, can match wits with an Alpha but isnt a Beta)
The 80 / 20 is a basis. There are outliers and exceptions. Yes, there is that ugly Hollywood executive with hairy ears who marries some stunning starlet. Yes, Bruce Willis is bald, Jason Stratham with thinning hair and basically bald. Jeff Bezos. This is the outlier / exception not the norm.
You could probably argue with an Incel who actually is in a listening pose (they are there, many are actually grounded once they know its really *over* usually past the age of 35) that maybe its 60 / 40 in some areas of the country or worse like 90 / 10 in others. I will say I am meeting more and more men who are actually pretty darn handsome and are young (20’s) here in LA. Way, way……WAY…..better looking than I was at that age and they are dateless. Its a problem. Now Game says they need to work on a gazillion things to build attraction. The RP world will point at Lastmod “see, looks are not important, this guy is handsome and he’s dateless; therfore Lastmod is wrong. Looks dont matter to women”
No. Too many women in that age range thinks hes “meh okay” the ante has been upped so high now, that guys above average looking are getting freezed out. I saw Hamza (bathrobe RP man) on a video talking to a guy like this, and of course this man “had to work on this, this, this, keep trying, but dont try too hard….do this, do that…….make sure you do this” without addressing the elephant in the room. The probnlem now is woman in this arena and these kinds of matters.
RP will defend women at all costs if means they might get an IOI or sex from her
But the bigger question RP cant or wont answer now….not just RP, the sphere in general. They assume “attractive woman” is good. An unattractiev one is an evil harpy. They always strive for she has to be “attractive” and this, and, and, and, and
Its assumed if a woman is attractive it will be easier or just natural for her to be “christian” and “nice” and “wife material”
I have posed “why would a man want to date this or that woman if she is a straight up b*tch” ANd to them in the end it doesnt matter. She is good for sex. She is good to shame if indeed you get to date her afterward and she is good for one thing only.
Their logic is like a women and girls in this matter. If the guy is handsome or hot. It is assumed he is “good”
You’re way better off with a plain looking girl who’s kind than a “hot” woman who’s difficult, angry, etc.
”Their logic is like a women and girls in this matter. If the guy is handsome or hot. It is assumed he is “good”
Boy are you right here Mod.
Also about Rollo i think the Christian part of the ‘sphere only thinks so highly of him once he started acting more and more ”intellectual” and ”scholarly” like NovaSeeker as time went on, and his connection to dalrock and because he’s married and goes to church(only to keep his wife ”happy” as he said years ago)
Other than that and his religion book:
They would consider him as ”dirty” as the agnostic Roissy=Heartiste was by dalrock(who started calling him a ”sinner” – which was very funny because they were all going by his version of game at the time and trying to emulate him instead of Rollo who they later deemed a saint instead of a ”sinner” like Heartiste-who ironically was actually ”kinder”
by comparison than most that named the name of CHRIST in the ‘sphere ) in particular by 2014.
I’ve been around the mandropshere (h/t Keoni) for over a decade. Men typically came from divorces and bad breakups to ask “what the hell just happened?” The base problems were solved rather quickly. Then it was asked “what do we do?” Some men went the self-improvement route, some MGTOWed, but a huge chunk went to Game. That worked until people realized that Game only works to get laid and not if you want a wife. For a minute it looked like there was going to be a RETVRN, but Tinder and Bumble showed up and tipped over the apple cart. Add in #metoo, cancel culture and Covid, and here we are in the present.
Ultimately, I think the manosphere is a failure. It is more a history than a movement. There are too many competing interests and quite frankly, it’s reactionary instead of proactive. There are no answers here. IMHO, and I’ve made my position clear on this, the only way out is to take the God Pill. Get right with your faith, then help your bros out because nobody else is going to. Leave the women to their own devices and fuck what these gurus say. And I mean all of them. I still listen and read from time to time, but none of them are my sensei. Cappy, Joker, Rich Cooper, Kevin Samuels, none of them. I take their words under advisement, but I do not hold them as Gospel. Cappy will gladly take your money and give you advice, but he’s not going to help you if his advice fucks up your life.
Ultimately, we’re going to have to retvrn to meatspace, so all this online bickering is going to come to an end. Almost all the major players and commenters get burned out and leave at some point. That day awaits all of us. And when that happens, all the words of Jack, Oscar, deti and yes, even me, will vanish like the morning dew. It will have zero impact on your life unless you let it. I was told I cannot serve two masters. I know who was there for me in my darkest hour, and it wasn’t Andrew Tate, Sharkly or Vox Day.
Many at SF actually believe that Dalrock one day in the future, his work is going to be Cannonized. Yes. Everything he wrote was indeed God inspired.
I’m in the meatspace now, so are you. This is the medium people use today for better or worse. Remember, I met Scott in person. We were both a bit surprised at the meeting and outcome. We both were not what we expected.
He’s welcome here in LA if he ever finds himself here. Are we friends? No. Do we email? Once or twice but I do understand he has a totally different life and responsibilities than I have, so I leave him alone. Call it a hunch, and I hope I’m not taking too many liberties speaking for him here……he probably feels that way about me.
I will disagree to a point. The Christian red pill areas have exactly what they want. A church or men’s fellowship in the sphere. They have leaders, topics and preconceived notions of what the answer must be to topics. Christian men’s groups like RP talk about sex a lot. Talk about women alot. Gripe about Beta men and lovers men alot, when they should look in the mirror. Faith is sprinkled in when it is solely to their advantage, just like any modern church.
They want this.
As for other content creators. Agreed. Cappy is entertaining for me. So was Samuels. Matt Walsh would be right at home on SF, dissing lower status men. Better Bachelor has been married twice I believe…..but there actually is a tad of humility in him. Rich Cooper is SF in video form. Smug.
What has been said about women has been said.
This is why I called him Saint Dalrock.
This is absolutely true, even as they remain intentionally ignorant of it. But…
…they don’t want to run their church as a Christian church is supposed to run.
From what I understand, the early church was believers meeting in homes. Reading the letters or copies of the letters that Paul had sent to various “churches” and I think there is a disconnect here. In todays mindset, we tend to think “Oh Paul’s Letter to Corinth” we tend to think, it was a large church in the center of town. It had stained glass, and of course the pastor, and deacons, and the widows and orphans ministry, of course the pastors wife. It had Sunday school classrooms and libraries inside. The congregation listened to the praise team…..
I read once that early Christians had it pretty rough. You are a fisherman, you have the best fish this side of Athens…….you go to the market. In order to sell in said market, you had to make a tithe or offering to the local diety or Caesar before entering to sell you fish (or any other product), well……..early Christians would not and could not do this. So now you have to sell outside the market and network diferently. Change your profession, just make the tithe but “Jesus will understand that I have to feed my family”
What I believe happened was; they didnt do this. They endured. They relied on each other. They honestly had a faith that God would provide for them. They prayed, a lot. The Letters Paul wrote actually scolded many early churches about doctrine, and told who and what Jesus was.
I also hear “orthodoxy” is the real, authentic church. Well, on paper that may be so…but I have read nowhere in the bible about icons, vestments, ritual, veneration, bishops, deacons, dancing around the altar when you get married and wearing crowns…..and when you die those crowns are waiting for you in heaven, this feast, that feast incense and chanting…..all these cultural trappings. Forgive me for picking on Orthodoxy, I could go on about modern protestantism, the Catholic church or the Anglican church (which is more cultural than actaully biblical)
I am the wrong person to state “what” the church is supposed to look like or how it should be run. But I do know there were no “seminaries” back in Paul’s time to “train” the “leaders” (they were men who were mentored in that home church and were very prayed up)
I have also heard it said from Jesus himself “when two are gathered in my name, I am there”
Your impression is the same as mine. The original meaning of eucharist was the tithe offering, from which the church supported its members who were poor. The early eucharist contained all kinds of food, including raw ingredients and prepared foods (like cheese). It’s amazing precisely how the very purpose of the eucharist has been spiritualized to the point where its original purpose has been lost. While this includes all denominations, it especially hits the Orthodox and Catholic. Early on, if being a Christian meant losing economic options, the church pitched in to help its own out. The poor would at least get a meal when they attended church!
Of course people met in homes, not dedicated buildings. Sometimes these were the homes of the wealthier Christians, including the homes of wealthy women landowners, of whom the manosphere insists were just providing access to the facilities and not having anything to do with the religious experiences.
“Cappy will gladly take your money and give you advice, but he’s not going to help you if his advice fucks up your life”
I don’t understand why anyone would listen to Cappy. He lives in a very bad mental space, and it shows. Adam did a podcast with him (deleted soon after) where he was obviously inebriated, and he cursed God, directly, for the bad weather at his home. Who knew that living in the midwest would lead to snow?!?
Does he have anything that anyone would want? What is he successful at, exactly?
I run into the same personality types every day when I venture into the city.
If I cut off someone in traffic, I can hear the same “advice” (screamed at me, out the window).
I cant fault him on that because people (men) pay him to get his verbal abuse Liz. If that advice is useful? I can see at times where it could be. I actually laugh at some of his retorts. Hes a sarcastic GenXer….and I do relate to that.
I read his book “enjoy the decline” and it makes a lot of sense to men who cant find date, let alone find a wfe to get married. I know, I know….those men are lazy, fat, live at home, play video games all day and live on welfare or mommy / daddy. They just need to accept Jesus and find a church, go to a gym, read Rollo and it will be great. If it isnt? They brought it on themselves / Jesus promises you nothing / there is no marriage in heaven.
Heads you lose. Tails you lose kind of thing for many men. Way too many men today.
He lords his high IQ on everyone and even wrote a book about it “oh, the curse of having a high IQ, we have sooooooo much to deal with, life isnt fair” kind of thing. It was stupid.
Pingback: Habitually Being Wrong