Part 2 of this series discussed the issue of fat men and masculinity. It showed that being fat—while generally unhealthy—is no reason to turn in your man card, but that many such men are quite masculine indeed. When you consider the tea drinking fat AI-generated preacher…
…you’ll likely find that his masculinity isn’t dependent on whether his tea is sweetened with sugar or stevia. So what makes a man masculine or not? What makes a woman feminine? I hinted at this already:
It is important to note at the outset that being fat isn’t a simple black-and-white, masculine-not-masculine issue, as Spurgeon shows.
To gain insight into this, we have to look at a little math and statistics.
Bimodal Distribution
Recall this from part 2:
- Strict binary states
- A simple spectrum
Masculinity and femininity are neither. Perhaps more accurately, they are both: bimodal distributions that overlap. Let me explain.
Sex is a binary. There is male, there is female, and there is nothing else. Sex is truly a black and white concept. Even nearly all so-called intersex cases are easily categorized as either male or female. There are just two discrete states: two.
Sex is not a spectrum. A spectrum is a type of distribution where you have two extremes and infinite variation between them. The left-to-center-to-right political spectrum is the perfect example. If sex were a spectrum, then there would be an infinite number of sexes. But there are not an infinite number of sexes, there are two. To produce a baby takes a single male and a single female. It takes one of each: there is no gradient of sexes.
Similarly, masculinity and femininity are not like the opposing poles on the left and right on the political spectrum. You don’t become proportionally more masculine by becoming less feminine, nor do you become proportionally less masculine by becoming more feminine. Rather, you can have more or less of a masculine trait, while simultaneously having more or less of a feminine trait. They are not strictly mutually exclusive.
Most sexual beings are sexually dimorphic: they have traits that differ according to sex. For example, in birds the male (e.g. peacock) tends to be brighter and more beautiful than the female (e.g. peahen). The displays are part of the male competition for a female mate. It is easy to see the binary (bright males, dull females), but there is also variation within those groups. Some males are brighter than other males, some females more or less dull than other females. This is known as a bimodal distribution.
Every bimodal distribution has two peaks: one for each of the binaries, which in this case is sex. The distributions may or may not overlap, but they often do. If they overlap heavily, it means that the male and female can be hard to distinguish, but they retain their identity as male or female nonetheless. This is straightforward: a peacock and peahen that looked the same would still differ in their anatomy and male/female genetics. No matter how much a male looks and acts like a female, he is still a male:
In a bimodal distribution, similarity does not negate the binary.
Masculinity and femininity are sex-binary traits that are bimodally distributed, and they often overlap. In intelligence, the difference between the modes of the male and female are not significant enough to notice (although the differences at the tails is quite noticeable): they overlap so closely that we normally just merge the bimodal distribution together to get a single distribution.
The bimodal distribution with overlap is easily seen in things like height and weight, but they are also seen in mental areas like academic performance:
How then do we define what masculinity is?
What is Masculinity?
The first thing to note is that:
Masculinity cannot be defined as a single black-and-white trait.
At the very least, it is a distribution of many different traits, each one on its own bimodal spectrum.
A fat person is somewhere on a spectrum of weight, but they are on other spectrum of bone density, muscle mass, height, genetic fitness, speed of metabolism, etc. Each of these individual traits is a bimodal distribution on the sex-binary. Assigning each of these traits a “masculine” or “feminine” spectrum is difficult.
For example, men are generally bigger than women (both height and weight), but women tend to get bigger by proportion due to their natural propensity to gain weight. This makes it difficult to say any of these traits are inherently masculine or feminine.
We all think we know what a masculine man is when we see him (and mostly we are right), but attempts to define it by quantities and qualities of specific attributes is paradoxical. All attempts to define masculinity in black-and-white terms is going to ring false and only separate masculinity from itself: promote some forms of masculinity over others. Designations of ‘alpha’, ‘beta’, etc. as measures of masculinity (or lack thereof) are inherently flawed.
The Masculine Ideal
There is a trap in treating a bimodal distribution as a distribution of morality or human worth.
God created people with varying level of attributes (like intelligence). When he decided to make man, he could have ensured that everyone had equal attributes, but he did not do so. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some men are more physically strong. Similarly, some people have a lower metabolism than others and tend to gain more body fat. God intentionally created people differently from each other, both across the sexes and within.
Now, pay close attention to this distribution:
Males and females share traits. It’s impossible to point to a point on this graph and say “here are the masculine men and here are the feminine men.” Consider this verse:
“Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” — 1 Peter 3:7
We all realize that the average man is stronger than the average woman. Women are almost always weaker than men. This is most obvious in grip strength, which is why women almost always ask their husbands to open jar lids:
But even here there is an overlap. What if a 95th percentile woman were to marry a 5th percentile man? Would he be emasculated because his wife was stronger than him? Should he be condemned as a “beta cuck” because his wife is physically stronger than he is? He is, after all, still a man and she a woman.
Those who treat masculinity as a black-and-white issue are just as likely to treat 1 Peter 3:7 as a black-and-white statement. Rather than treat Peter’s statement as a general principle (“men are generally the protectors of women”), they’ll treat as law (“men have a duty to protect women and women may not protect men”). The logic of their position means that a man who wants to be masculine must be stronger than his weaker wife even when that isn’t the case. “If a man fails to do this, he is a failure as a person, as a man” as it were. Or, “he should never have married her.” Good luck if a man ever becomes disabled.
It is not surprising that the Christian manosphere is full of Christian men who interpret the Bible in strict black-and-white terms while also viewing masculinity with strict rigidity. These two modes of thought go together. That this will conflict with reality is inevitable. Reality demands that masculinity be viewed as both a black-and-white sex binary and multiple spectrum of different traits within the context of that binary. In the next part, we will ask and answer a number of questions about how to determine what is or isn’t masculine and how best to think about those concepts generally and flexibly without denying the reality of their differences.
The post war era in Europe and the West (including Japan / Oz ) I believe was a speedbump in history. Not the norm. Most of human history has been plagued with wars, slavery, exile, death. The periods of “relative” peace were still marred and tarred with disease, strife, famine, crop failures. People forget the number one killer of women pre 1920 was….childbirth for the most part.
After the second world war……everything was pretty much destroyed. Japan was creamed. Most of Europe’s most ancient cities were piles of rubble. The loss of life was off the scale. The Soviet Union alone took the brunt of the total war with well over 22 million dead. Even the outlying nations that did not directly fight in the war…the impact was huge. Libya, Singapore, the Philippines…….and even in China, which had been fighting the Japanese since 1932 along with an internal civil war, and also the colonial powers that had their ports, and spheres.
The world was shattered. Except the USA and to a lesser extent in influence….Canada.
The “new” post war order gave a very, very rare opportunity for the west, and much of the world with a reset of sorts. This reset brought about massive advances in medicine, a standard of living and stability for the most part. This stability bred into it a large baby boom…..not just in the USA but for a large segment of the world…including the Communist victors in eastern Europe after the war.
The playing field had leveled for a period. The cost of living was low, prices were low, and wages matched and exceeded. It was a rare “blend” of many areas coming together. By the mid 1950’s the world increased its general standard of living exceptionally. Even in “second world” countries like the Soviet Union, and Mexico.
This leveling enabled many men to marry at a higher rate than had ever been achieved in the West.
The model in the end could not sustain itself, and there are countless other areas / policies and situations that caused this period to end…….
I believe we are reverting back to an older model…..a model of harems (which women will gently encourage as times get more bleak…..and the men who have the looks will gladly accept). A time is coming where life will be so cheap, personal right and liberties will be reserved for the few. A time when a technocracy of sorts will rule and….and most will be dirt poor, tied to the land or position (a corporate feudalism of sorts). We see the starting of this now.
The elites and influencers (christian or not) will throw the mass of men scraps, lots of porn, twisted Scripture to make them believe their status in life is their own fault to keep them in line…..perhaps a UI (universal Icome) in some form and a built in isolation. We are seeing this now. The sphere offers no solution except to : join a gym or join a church…but a bold and masculine one that are everywhere….if you dont find one….”you like being a Bets” comments. It wont be about Jesus at all anymore, just a shell of what it was. I am sure lots of “modern praise” though!
The postwar model couldnt last because it wasnt the norm, and never will be.
Even in the golden age of Pericles in Greece, the lifespan of an average man was 30? In the height of Victorian Britain……maybe 45?
The balnce was setup for a period after the war, and it was not the norm.
When life becomes a bit too easy for a society women can focus on how *hot* a guy is and men can focus on “easy access” to women. When all pillars are knocked down and society reverts (and humans) back to their early barbaric roots very quickly
Free Northerner says often that the default state of mankind is poverty. There is a reason I called the manosphere’s view of masculinity a luxury belief.
Very interesting. I would agree. When a man has time to learn (cough) “game” instead of working v starving. When a men have time to post in a parlour society about women, sex, who is hot, who isnt. When most men by my age would have died already without modern medicine and procedures….I had my appendix removed in 2005. It was in the process of rupturing. If this had happened to me pre WW II in the USA outside of a larger city (LA, NYC, Boston) I would have died at the tender age of 35. Sure, some smaller cities and towns had a doctor, maybe even a smallish hospital……but his bedside manner was probably the best he could do when it came to a very serious matter like this., and others like it.
An infected tooth killed people *frequently* before WW II.
Most of the men in the man-o-sphere. Christian or not, they are not “workin’ on a farm” for a living. Nor are they a ditchdigger, or in some very hard, intense physical labor intense profession. Most are highly educated. Higher than normal intellect, have a comfortable position and status. A teacher, a lawyer. An investment / banker / financials. Other softer support services in business and organizations. They also have “looks”
The working men whom they seem to have this noble savagery and love with; these men are not in their forums asking advice. Why? They are too busy working for the most part. These men are not running forums, or blogs. These men also probably find some of the material hilarious.
”God created people with varying level of attributes (like intelligence). When he decided to make man, he could have ensured that everyone had equal attributes, but he did not do so. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some men are more physically strong. Similarly, some people have a lower metabolism than others and tend to gain more body fat. God intentionally created people differently from each other, both across the sexes and within.”
Even at red pill sites that don’t make a big deal out of intelligence or physical strength too many want everyone to know they are as essentially as intelligent as William James Sidis-who’s IQ was estimated to be 250-300 instead of Albert Einstein’s 250 which is impossible based on the same studies they analyze and study as if their dalrock with his expertise in charts and graphs in his prime of 2012-’16.
And i thought Dalrock was no more intelligent(mainly based on him NOT bringing the ”red pill” more in line with the Bible/reality than most others did) than most other economists, which was his profession of course.
Red Pill as seeing reality as it is, and its supposed to anger tyou, and then the mist clears and you see the potentials or something you are to strive for…or have something a “reason to believe” in.
For most places in the ‘sphere, that became (again) the sex act. You see before, it was for the “wrong reasons” but with Red Pill its used to determine how much of a man you are. Red Pill is basically PUA 2.0. They threw a few guys under the bus (Mystery for example), catered masculinity to more what women wanted (demanded) and then sold us all again “Game” under a bunch of new terms and hybred ideals they claimed were “new”
What has been said about female nature in the modern sense has been said over and over and over. The “Betas” are still not getting it evidently so the usual “negs” and smearing, and knit picking over anyone deemed a “lesser” man. No hope for him. Even if a lesser man overcomes “he did it wrong” and they seem to be more upset that the lesser man isnt “thanking them”
When I was in Scouting, the founder Lord Baden Powell visioned that “Scouting is a jolly game with RULES”
Men need rules of fair play, teaching, listening, applying and undertaking. When said “rules” are changed, made to not “apply” in certain situations, or only made to be used on some, and not all…..then we get what we have now.
Worthless, low IQ Betas are not responisible for this muddled mess of the ‘sphere today. They have zero power, status, influence and PSALMS or LAMPS or whatever they are calling it now……and yet, they are blamed for “messing everything up”
The sphere only wants a complete “package” of a man showing up. Like the church before it, actually teaching, uplifting, helping and walking deeper with a man will build discipleship. The ‘sphere again wants these men to arrive…finished. Too many cooks, too many experts, managers, sous chefs, owners and one guy running the plates to the table and he gets blamed for “not bringing the food out fast enough to customers”
More and more lecturing, posturing. Fewer doing the work.
Just because there are men who are naturally weaker than average woman doesn’t mean we should throw whole social order out of the window to cater to desires of minorities. That is what the left does and we see the fruits of that (I know you have very lax definition of leftism, but let stick to the definition assumed by most people).
“Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives”
Even if they fail to what is expected of them, God still wants wives to submit to their husbands. Outside of saving such husbands by sheer goodness of their wives, it also helps to maintain the social order. If you allow wifes to submit based on their mood, then all hell breaks lose for the whole society.
“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs who were made by men”
Jesus states it very clearly that there are people naturally born unfitting for marriage, and ones who were made that way through surroundings (men who put women on pedestal perhaps?). Yes, world is not fair. Some men/women are born or conditioned to be feminine/masculine respectively.
You don’t deduce what is masculine by looking at data to find some element that is shared across every single male and isn’t by every single female. Masculinity is an ideal, we are not. We are corrupted by sin. You see what is truly a masculine/feminine by looking at God’s intent, not by how it plays out in corrupted world.
You are making this political. My comment is not political.
God never said that. Literally. The English translations that say this are not translating the text literally.
You are just making the same error: assuming masculinity is a spectrum, where on one end you have no masculinity and on the other end you have full masculinity.
Masculine traits are normally distributed. What is “normal” (pardon the pun) is not at the extremes of the spectrum of differences. Indeed, the extremes are often considered non-ideal and dysfunctional.
There is no ideal for masculinity. It is a subjective, changing target, which is why no one has pinned down even what the ideal is. Ideal masculinity is not achievable because we are corrupted, but because the ideal is actually impossible to attain, even if we had no sin. It is inherently contradictory.
This is speeding fast from being a man (genetically) to being a “real man” (sociological / cultural / anthropology).
Any man that God made, genetically…….having the XY chromosome is a man. That he “lovingly” created in “His” image. He knits you in the womb, knew you before you were born……
And now, today……being a man is
* Sex
*Getting IOI’s and female attention
*Fixing classic cars on the weekends
*Going to the gym
*Playing real tough sports like tackle football
*wearing a baseball cap backwards
*Having a beard (let me tell you, if women suddenly *decided* that beards were icky. 99% of young men with one right now would shave it off). In the 1980’s beards were deemed “icky” by women hence very few men having one
*Being a leader in church (pastor, deacon, important head of a ministry)
*Being a leader at work (who does the work if every man is a *cough* “leader”)
*Being able to fight like a UFC champion
*Having a STEM degree
*Serving in the military
*Having a higher than average IQ (so much for that Bell curve thing)
It goes on…..
Growing up where I did, our neighbor Alois Jones (three miles) had a working, small family dairy farm. High school graduate. Served in WW II. Came home after the war, and worked the same farm, then inherited it and worked it til he died in 2001. Never married (didnt fit the criteria for being masculine I am sure….sarcasm). He spoke five languages. His mother was French, so he learned that at home. Learned Spanish, and Italian as well. English of course…..and also Mohawk / Iroquois. The helpers on the farm back in the 1920’s were natives of that tribe (who still live in the area). He was a translator during WW II. Saw actual combat. Came home, did what he knew.
By the modern standards here, this man was an utter Beta and failure, and not masculine.
The traits of being a man or what is “deemed” being a man by people who profess “God as the highest authority” have no clue …..and again, fob this off on other men of what they MUST be and behave like, a good many of them hardly fall short of the standard they impose on others.
”Never married (didnt fit the criteria for being masculine I am sure….sarcasm). ”
The push for all MEN to marry is what made the ”blackpillers” leave more than anything else, but now ”you must marry to ”save” women and civilization from supposed ”enforced” depopulation(which is the natural result of moder living more than conspiracy but don’t tell red pillers that ) even though the ”original redpill” was ”DON’T GET MARRIED” preached by every PUA like Roissy , Roosh , saint Rollo (who still preaches it to this day) and even the supposed ”grandfather” of PUA Tom leykis, let alone the majority of 1st and 2nd gen MRAS &MGTOWS alike then comes Keoni Galt/Hawaiian Libertarian(whose Tuesday September 15th ’09 post ”game is the redpill” was his most successful post ever, as he said in August 2012 @dalrock) with the ”redpill” in ’08 based on Roissy’s version of game then soon came Athol kay and Susan walsh preaching ”use game to get married dudes” in late ’08/early ’09 then last of all came Dalrock at the spearhead in late ’09/early ’10-who later would be the biggest supporter of the new ” get married redpill” that was the opposite that was still preached by the majority of the MANosphere ’till about ’14/’15 when the blackpillers ”mysteriously” left the ‘sphere for unknown to most married red pillers like dalrock.
Here’s some of Keoni Galt’s ”Game is the redpill”post.
”TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
Game is the Red Pill
Now that it appears the debate between the PUA/MGTOW/MRA blogosphere about Game and it’s relevance and morality has cooled down a bit, I would like to reiterate the one point I believe is most relevant for why all men should take an effort to understand Game without trying to marginalize it or write it off as completely erroneous, simply because you object to the morality espoused by the PUA…or that you think Game is a silly, manipulative script that men follow simply to get laid.
To use the Matrix allegory, Game is the Red Pill.
…something happens which makes us question those very rituals we’ve blindly followed and we are confronted with a choice – shall we take the blue pill and choose to ignore any inconsistencies with our own paradigm which works pretty well, or shall we take the red pill and explore these inconsistencies knowing that it could lead us into a world we aren’t familiar with… one that questions the very foundations of our current perspective.
In this context, I think it’s perfectly fitting to describe the social engineering by cultural indoctrination and conditioning that has been effected for the last century regarding gender roles and attitudes towards institutions like the Patriarchal nuclear family; the confusion engendered by the “battle of the sexes” and the legal system of sexual/social politics; is all really best described as a mass delusion…an epidemic of blue pill-addiction.
Symptoms of blue pill delusions are ubiquitous, and it manifests itself all over the place. Only the few red pill takers…those that understand the reality of gender relations…are even aware of just how widespread the mass delusion of distorted gender roles is inculcated into mainstream consciousness.
And this is where “Game” comes in. Game is the red pill because it is based on men analyzing what behaviors are attractive to women, and what behaviors are not.
It is the basis for just about all social dynamics amongst any human interaction…why men compete with other men (for access to women)..why women compete for the attention and affection of men they perceive as desirable to other women.
Game is the Red Pill because it deals with understanding the principles of observable truths that are field tested…and these truths are in direct contradiction to the blue pill delusions of preconceived notions regarding gender roles in our BraveNewWorldOrder.
Once we learn of that new paradigm, we can no longer hold the older belief as our truth. Not everyone can deal with this kind of thinking. Many people are perfectly content believing something to be as they’ve always known it to be, and reject this newer attempt at truth because it’s too painful to accept – they’ve been living their entire life based on this lie and only now they come to discover that the world is not what they thought it was.
Unlike the caricature portrayed by it’s detractors, Game is NOT a simple ruse…a routine or a schtick to manipulate or trick women into having sex with men. No, it’s about truly understanding social dynamics and the role that social hierarchy plays in any human interaction. Once you have this understanding, you begin to see “THE MATRIX” or false reality of delusions regarding gender relations.
I thought of this as I read the comment section of Dr. Helen’s blog post that I cited in my last post on Relationship Dynamics. So many Men weighed in with their comments, unknowingly revealing the depths of their blue pill instilled delusions that contributed to their failures in their relationships.
Here are a few quotes that demonstrate this blue pill effect:
And whenever your woman asks which of two paint colors you prefer, you have to say you don’t care. The alternative is surely picking the wrong color and paying dearly for it.”
Yes, Red Pill is tied to Game and it has been for awhile according to the post GBFMtm.
Hence why they *must* have all the pills tied to it…and of course, the “evil” Betas and their Blue Pill thinking that is stopping the world from being perfect.
Its like when Communism wasnt working when implemented in all these countries in the 20th century.
The futility of the program or ideology was not questioned. No. Never. It was the “Kulaks” in Russia that were the problem. Death to them! It was the “petty bourgeois” in China. Death to them! Rout them out! It was the fault of this vast conspiracy of “Bautista” supporters hiding everywhere in Cuba! Death to them! It was the doctors, and lawyers and teachers in Cambodia that ruined the revolution in Cambodia….to the killing fields with them!
Now, we are not that extreme yet….but the incessant blame of hopelessly Beta men and “Blue Pill” on the reason why the “Red Pill” revolution and acceptance of these “easy to understand and implement ideas” has not happened is laughable.
Rollo a few years back telling us we had to thank “Game” for how much better men have become with women. He obviously didnt follow the stats.
These people have drank the Kool-Aid on this ideology and now admitting that “a lot of this is horsesh*t” would bring shame and their Egos are so blasted for “never being wrong” I dont think they COULD admit it.
I live in California, and these die-hard Game / Red Pill types on everything….looking at everything through this lense is making them look like a joke. Here in California so many look at everything through race. Its absurd, but dont you tell them that. You are “racists” for saying it and questioning their “intellect” and “superiority”
Like this Game types, they immediately shame you with “blinded by blue pill thinking” tropes. Like the Communist propoganda before it.
I hesitate to engage in the no true Scotsman fallacy but the manosphere is a bunch of guys with many differing opinions. E.g. the “ugly men just need to learn game” crew is one set of “red pill” men who seem to be inspired by the pickup artist faction. Deti doesn’t believe that faction – is Deti not redpill or manosphere?
Manosphere men can mean different things when they talk of “masculine.” Some mean “what women find attractive” some mean “what other men admire/respect”, others mean some sort of essence of masculinity, either in God’s creation or in a natural or civilizational sense.
There are lots of writers, commenters, youtubers, etc. Their opinions very considerably.
I’m not saying there’s no underlying themes. If there’s one it’s that the relationship between the sexes has broken down and it’s not all men’s fault.
It’s a reactionary mindset, for better or worse. They’re right to react even if one can overreact or react in a wrong direction.
If that’s all “no true Scotsman” then you have my apoligies.
It’s a fair point. I guess this only applies to those it applies to and not the ones that it doesn’t!
That’s very close to a comment I left on a different thread. It’s our greatest strength and weakest link that we have no unified creed. Men are coming in from all over, winners and losers alike. Some guys are sincere, some are trolling, some are trying to make a buck. Some guys don’t really have to game their wife very much; other have to practically beat the sh!t out of her to get breakfast on time. To each his own. Be wise as serpents and don’t take any of these men too seriously, including me. I will serve the Lord and while I understand that some men do not (and I believe those men are living wrong), they have a right to choose and I must judge them accordingly.
I dont know…there are more than few…commenters on RP blogs…..secular and scared alike that dont really like women, and many more who really dont like their fellow men. They seem to want to “rule” or “hold sway” rather than stand for the “truths” they purport.
Lenin and Stalin behaved in the same manner they used “the useful idiots” to purport the ideology but they themselves didnt believe one spec of it. I am beginning to see more an more of this. An “intellectual” class of men who will shut you down with charts, complex words, invented words, new axioms, re-packaged ideas and snide remarks “not an argument” and knit picking over my status as a man or minor comment I made.
Terrible people most of them.
Out comes the Holy Book and the endless debates on what a word means or what “jesus really meant” when it fits them only. Absurd. Game advocates and slavish followers behave the same.
Then why bother with them? Let them pound sand. What Rollo really believes or does does not directly impact my life unless I let it. We will both answer to God in the end, and I guarantee He won’t ask me if I followed the 16 Commandments of Poon.
I dont bother with him. Rollo has quoted me I think three times on his blong since 2016. All to shame me mind you, I meet men in the sphere…all quote him. I go to a mens group. I am asked “have you read this amazing book?” (Rollo). Countless blogs and the like quote him and cite him on everything. SF foundation and philosophy inst the Bible. Its Rollos book.
I have to bother with him. Daily inm the sphere on the glass or out in the world. If dare criticize, you might as well put on a dress and kill yourself.
”Out comes the Holy Book and the endless debates on what a word means or what “jesus really meant” when it fits them only. Absurd. Game advocates and slavish followers behave the same. ”
Boy are you right there , i was at DeepStrength’s site stating that only God is perfect yesterday like JESUS stated here in Mark 10:18:
“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.”
And of course i’m a ”crypto-feminist” trying to make men look bad.
You know who it was the guy that thought you were ruining his ”community of MEN” in 2019?
i and him had a falling out where i left his site(s) and then he started trolling me at SPAWNYS and wondering out loud to ” protect others” if i was a troll like he has done on this site too.
He just like most want to be seen as ” the only REAL MANtm Christian ” in the ‘sphere and he can have it like you have stated about a certain guy trolling you elsewhere.
I just read through that post. Nonsensical. No lay person in Christ would ever be able to understand that. None.
No man with average intelligence could read that and say “oh, makes perfect sense”
They would be totally confused. I was.
Lastly, if any Christian is following the Book of James. I want to meet them.
Any guy who played sports and was in a lockeroom knows that guys constantly compete with each other, engaging in pissing contests. Some of the over-the-top stuff you see is probably this. “My pill’s redder than yours’.” And the monetizers and book writers have an incentive to stake out their unique redpill spin and addict viewers/readers to outrage at women’s flaws and transgressions.
As far as the limited crew at Sigma Frame and SS, I think there are a lot of men there genuinely hurt by women in their lives. Look at Deti. I really, genuinely am bothered by what happened to him and how he processes it. Even Scott is still hurt by what his first wife did to him.
Some of my more outrageous comments are born more out of frustration than sober-minded reason.
And it can be an echo chamber. That’s why I appreciated Jason and also the women’s input. There was some constructive criticism without genuine trolling.
Cameron,
I take your point and agree.
I think I may have just gotten kicked off at Sigma Frame over one of these matches.
You can’t argue grammar with an English professor. Experts don’t like to be challenged.
Yeah, it’s a terrible situation. I wish it could be different.
Peace,
DR
Echo chambers create weird ego-charged confirmation bias environments.
Remember the touting of the pornographer Onlyfans couple?
The shaming of anyone with the temerity to question?
Women’s coffee clutch groups can have the tendency to promote terrible ideas . Divorces are often “contagious” in those groups.
I’ve seen the promotion of similarly bad ideas in parts of the sphere (exception Spawny’s).
For example, one person at SF, we’ll call advanced-liberal-arts-degree guy, stated that whenever his wife questions his “tolerance for high risk investments” he reminds her she makes less money than he. I saw that and thought, “uh oh”.
That post got a lot of likes. Things didn’t turn out well.
I mean it’s a mixed bag. I agree with some things at SF and disagree with others. I would disagree with some things I wrote. Spawny’s is more a goofy fun site.
I’m not here to bash the sphere – they have plenty of valid complaints. Sometimes the high IQs sperg out and dissect things too much. What I first saw at Dalrock’s was “we know about men’s flaws because everyone talks about them. Here’s women’s flaws.” It wasn’t “women suck – period.”
Oh yeah! The grandparents pornographers. Professor made me LMAO with his “Porn Pill Apostle” comment.
Agreed it is a “mixed bag”.
I came to the sphere because it was interesting and I liked the people, for the most part.
I’ve always liked discussing politics (though after almost a decade in the sphere, after over a decade as a moderator on a political debate forum I have finally about had my fill…miss those days when I was a kid and would watch William F Buckley and Christopher Hitchens go at each other, both brilliant men with succinct points and wit, who disagreed heatedly but still respected each other)
I’ll add that it is hard to make an assessment about someone’s personal circumstances with only partial information.
In the sphere, wide sweeping assessments are often made this way.
I don’t think this is necessarily helpful (see above example of the gambler).
I know a person who won 5 million dollars about 15 years ago in the slot machine. Today, he owes all of his friends money. A lot is written in the Bible about hubris and foolishness. Some portion of the sphere seems to celebrate hubris as an alpha trait. In my experience in life, the most valuable people tend to be the least arrogant.
The ‘sphere is not political, occasional comment aside. It is about men and women and their relationship. There had to be something about men and women and relationships that drew you in. There had to be some sort of empathy for men that made you stay. Even the fun site, Spawny’s, frequently says (many) women suck. Just guessing.
Having 2 boys?
My wife tends to empathize with men’s problems. We have 6 boys.
Marriage and families are breaking and everyone, men and women, should be interested in “why”. Mainstream pundits are talking about it. There’s nothing inherently masculine or feminine about discussing “why.”
Whether or not the sphere’s spin(s) on “why” are right or wrong is a different matter. Some mainstream pundits e. g. Tucker are starting to sound like ‘sphere-lite.
Many women do suck. More than men by far.
I don’t have many female friends for that reason (though I do love my daughter in law, very much).
All my female friends are married (most in very good and longstanding marriages).
And men are funnier, smarter, all around better in my estimation.
Per the sphere and politics,
Back when I first started reading we lived in a very strange (civilian) community. I had a lot of anecdotal experience with the things folks were saying in the sphere. Also, at the base, there had been about 10 fake rape claims over the course of only a couple of years. I mean proven fake, after a LOT of problems. And the Lt Colonel Wilkerson trial (where the convening authority was fired, and Congress tried to eliminate convening authorities as a result…and he was not able to obtain employment after) had taken place pretty recently (I knew a lot of these people pretty well).
Then there was the Alaska air fiasco with the drunk who accused the captain of assault. He was fired and unable to obtain employment…then shortly after that she accused another pilot on another flight.
Most people were cheering on the accusers and our vantage point showed that it was criminal in inhumane to the accused and their families.
One pilot had to leave the country…not because he had done anything wrong, but the environment made it impossible for him to stay.
At any rate,
It was political to me.
I find it odd that people are coming HERE and saying “how much they love my input and take”
but back over there?????????
Its funny because none of you stood up to The Grouch over there, nor when I was being ripped to shreds in the comment section, none of you said “hold up!”
In fact, I was called out very shabilly by a supposed “real christian” who preaches love all the time. No one said “Hey pot meet kettle”
Only after I drifted out…..its the “I really liked your input”
You’re not the first. Not all my input was correct mind you. Yes, I fully admit maybe 10% of posting was trolling to see if some would actually defend their stances and faith (almost none could)
So I appreciate the niceness now, and I do thank you………………….but I didnt see much if any while actually trying to make a few men think over there or to actually CONVINCE me of their walk with God was true, and they wanted me a part of it.
None did. Zero. Hypocrites…just about all of them
I thought Oscar was a relentless jerk to you picking constant fights. What could I have done? I would just get into an endless argument loop and he’d still keep doing it. It’s up to the site administrators to crack down on these sorts of things. They’re always into “free speech.”
I didn’t like the way Jack chastised you for posting something off topic when it was tolerated when others did it. He owns the website.
I can only offer my apologies – same to Liz.
I always tried to be kind and supportive of you (I think I got mad at you once) sometimes under different pseudonyms at other sites I saw you at. I once tried to find your personal contact info because I was worried about you over something you wrote.
You pretty much told me you didn’t need any sympathy – that your past experiences had taught you not to depend on others – which I’m sure is true. That’s the sentiment I got from you. Elspeth noticed my concern for you.
I defended you on that blog, and still do. Oscar and I did not agree at all on how to handle you. I told him he was being too rough on you, and he can’t use the stick on everyone. I guess the stick has always worked on him. Anyway, whenever he is called out for going “muh bootstrapz!1!!1!1” on people, he always says he’s being misunderstood. No, Oscar, you’re being a jackass. They’re not the same thing.
As for Jack, it’s his blog and he can police it however he wants. I think he gives people plenty of room to talk, and that doesn’t always make everyone happy. Thankfully there’s more than one place to go. He’s not the king of the manosphere.
I dont need stmpathy, and still dont. Ive accepted my situation. Its cool. I still will not accept my place in this world by a label from the sphere or anywhere else now. “Beta” “Simp” “Blue Pilled Delusional”
And yes…..let me admit that some people were kind and of all the years and situations, I cannot remember every one of then clearly or exactly. I will take what you both say as “true” (cameron and barclays) and neither of you owe me an apology.
When I met Scott we didnt talk about anyone in specifics on the blog.
Its Jacks blog in the end, and I will no longer waste his time. I did mellow a bit after getting off there. My brain did clear a bit. SO what does that say about “red pill intellectualism”?
No much for most men in my situation (average IQ) and sub five on the looks scale. Its a club. I wish I could be aprt of it, and I was envious that I couldnt be a part of it. Its not “their loss” but it reflects perfectly to a large swath of men, they are not needed or wanted there.
Anyway….
As for the men there who are angry, hurting over there I will shove and shovel what was forced down my throat:
“This is a faith of suffereing. Stip being miserable! Jesus owes you nothing. The Bible says you are to rejoice in your suffereing. He has a plan!”
As one can see, its not easy to be a bold and biblical “real man” christian, addicted to all these levels and “pills” of manhood and then to have your own teaching thrown back in your face.
I know right now a man there is suffering deeply, and as much as I feel and pine for him. A lot of that above quote was shoved on me by him and others. Hard to take your own advice.
The men over there whose situations bother me are deti and Scott. Scott has a good wife now but you can tell his memories of his first still bother him greatly. People suffer subjectively in the sense that circumstances that might not phase one guy can be terrible for others. “It’s all in your head” as they say.
It is a faith of suffering in the sense that suffering when we obey Christ is uniting ourselves to him. And people suffer anyway – everyone at some point. The promise of a heavenly reward after this short life. To people who reject it this will obviously be seen as a “cope.”
I should suffer with e.g. deti or Scott by lending a sympathetic ear rather than throw the Christian teaching back in their face.
I dont know…..In NA / AA I was constantly told “we are the creators of this personal miserey we are now dealing with” (alcohol and drug addiction). Also “it may indeed take a lifetime to repair and fix the damage from the choiecs YOU made”
Okay. I can accept that. I can not like it. I can be annoyed with my 25 year-old-self and I still am btw. I also understand fully the consequnces of this behavior…..the results. Pretty much made myself an “undatebale” person. Damaged goods. By the time I got on board and the sobriety under control….yes, it was indeed “too late”
If I was blessed with good or better looks…..probably would have had a chance, or least a better one. That is not a cop out or a “cope” its reality.
So? What do I do now? I had to move on. Im entering very uncharted waters now. You always had that lifelong bachelor in society. The one who was a player I guess, or the the strange uncle who lived in the hills or further out who was repairing cars, riding a motorcycle…..odd jobs. Just a loner type. Perhaps that one bachelor who was just closeted gay. Didnt make an issue of it. Just lived as a bachelor.
Its surreal who there is now on one left to call when you pick up the phone. A tinge of regret wishing you called more when they were still alive. College friends all grew up as well…..and fell into life. Married, divorced, dating again, children….and now grandchildren.
Today men like me by the ‘sphere are told “its our own fault”. Its our fault that we were born not attaractive on a cultural standard that is getting ver, very VERY narrow now of what is deemed accepatble. Its your own fault if you were born “shorter than average” and its your own fault for not accepting female nature that they have no agency. They just cannot help who they fall for, what they do, why they like someone. You, however have to own up to being anything and everything to be attractive and have have them notice you!
Head you lose, tails you lose pretty much for a single man over 35.
If I have to accept these things. Well, all the men with bad marriages have to own up as well. You chose her. Deal with it. Find your bible verse and twist it so you can “divorce her” despite what Jesus said himself about the topic. Find your circle of bros and “justify” why you can leave the marriage (just like women do).
The choices youi make you have to deal with…..and if I am going to deal with mine. You deal with yours.
This is the problem I have with AA (my brother went through it so I’ve seen it first hand) : how they beat you into the ground with “you’re an alcoholic and that’s who you’ll always be” and “you’ve destroyed lives and it’s all your fault”. I get why they do this; a lot of addicted people are in denial and want to put the blame anywhere but themselves. They need a stern approach to get them to regain sovereignty over their lives. But at some point, when you’ve largely cleaned up and made amends with everyone, you no longer need that message, and AA doesn’t seem to offer anything else. They actually keep you stuck so you can never move on from their program. Kind of like dating apps in a way.
If you have repented of your former sins, and have ‘amended your life’ as the Act says, you shouldn’t be carrying around the guilt of the former sin, and anyone still holding you to your former self should be told to shove off. That the supposedly “Christian” manosphere doesn’t understand this is divine comedy. I defend you because I don’t see you as broken. That’s how you should have been treated. And while I’m frustrated that you won’t let go of your former self and the worthless opinions of these manosphere people, I understand that it’s a process and I have faith that you will. You’re an intelligent and capable man who has dug yourself put of the pit, and you should be commended, not scorned. If no one else will say it i will and if that makes me a fool in manosphere circles, so be it.
At a minimum, Scott, deti,Sharkly and myself have been supportive of him.
I think when you can’t function as in drug addiction you have to go this route. I see no problem with frustrated but functional men like Scott, deti and Sharkly venting on obscure blogs a few people read.
I have no problem with it either. The evil comes from people like Oscar who told them to “quit ‘yer bitchin’!” and get on with it, with no context as to who he was saying it to and whether that’s what they needed to hear. Guys like that often do more damage than good, unless they happen to land on the exact people who need that message.
”As for the men there who are angry, hurting over there I will shove and shovel what was forced down my throat: ”
You could say the same about dalrock’s site , especially ‘tween ’17 and ’19 when you were really being piled on by anon and a few others.
”As one can see, its not easy to be a bold and biblical “real man” christian, addicted to all these levels and “pills” of manhood and then to have your own teaching thrown back in your face.”
Same as i said above.
Your shameful treatment by the Christian ‘sphere since you started commenting regularly at dal’s in ’16 really is the best testimony (against them) and even more to why the ‘sphere as whole drove away the black pillers while supposedly ”wishing them well and love as our fellow MEN and brothers.”
Who knows? If had served in the military and was an officer and led troops to die for oil and other geopoliticla vendettas……maybe that one individual would have accepted me. If I was married at 22 and met my wife at a church retreat when we were 18 despite it not being his church; and were still married I would probably be “in” with him, even if we disagreed.
Going forward, when dealing with the Red Pill / Game / Frame world, when or if I met them “out there” is tell them how foolish they are. If they happen to be Christain I will tell them “follow what Jesus said, to have your yes mena yes and your no mean no. ”
He said nothing of being high status, even in this “holy” time of the year, I remember in the Bible when Mary and Joesph presented the baby Jesus at the Temple, their offering was that of the “commoners” or “the poor”. They were not of “means”. Shame on Joesph for wedding Mary when he didnt have “provision” or a STEM degree (rolls eyes). He said nothing of “female nature and hypergamy” nor getting IOI’s from them or how to “Game” them to him, or a mans frame. He didnt play tackle football. He didnt go to the gymnasiums of his day (it would have said so). He was trained in the field of his earthly father Joesph. He hardly bragged about “what he could have made”. He made no mention of how to chat up women in the Temple courts after the Sabbath.
Joeseph being his eathly father……..in fact was a “step dad” of sorts. Joeseph could not compete with God, but he had humility and accepted his role to Jesus and his mother, who just happened to be his wife. In the Red Pill world, Joesph would be a “cuck” and a “simp” and in the Christain RP world, he would be labeled “blue pill” and all the other smears if that was any other man.
Who knows? The ‘sphere itself is not in tatters, but again is fracturing and the ones in charge had a golden opportunity…….and that is slipping away. If it hasnt already. Like government operatives, and college professors, and their higher IQ…..the will weasel their way out and blame me…………or men like me. We wont take it this time
Joseph is someone I’ve reflected on a lot. If a poor man was good enough to raise the Son of Man, then what could riches have added to him? Our Savior was literally born in rags. Did Mary hang it over his head the rest of this life because he didn’t “have his shit together” enough to get her a decent room? That he didn’t walk in and strong-arm the owner or some other Alpha bullshit and force her into the embarrassing situation of giving birth amongst the livestock? No she didn’t, because at the end of the day none of that mattered. Weren’t we advised on how difficult it is for a rich man to get into Heaven? Then why are we striving for riches? Do we not trust God to provide for us? You get the meanings of the scriptures, Jason. An awful lot of our esteemed colleagues do not.
The least among us is our leader.
The sphere can and will go on about how Joseph, “he was the lineage of David, a great warrior and king” . Great. So why wasnt Joseph a “rich merchant, or some other of the more noble classes”?
He obeyed God. And, because of his “status” which was “just a carpenter” (mind you, carpenters were not a Union job with vacation pay, healthcare and a retirement plan back then) I am sure Mary wasn’t some hottie for her age and her own family status had to have her wed to Joseph, or a man like him. He was a bit older than her (custom for the time). We know Mary was probably very devout. Kept the sabbath, the Law and lived in humility.
I have been told that God takes the ordinary and makes “extraordinary”. Perhaps so. In this situation, God used two people who trusted and lived a life of his favor. Being it for richer or poorer. I still dont think they knew how important their son was going to be. Even Joseph when told by the angel that he “should wed Mary” despite her with child that was not his.
Yes, in todays world he would be a “simp” and called a “cuck” and “thirsty” and “desperate” in the RP world.
We dont hear much about Joseph, and honestly I think its because there didnt have to much else said. He obeyed God. Raised Jesus “as he grew in wisdom and stature” fathered other children with Mary. Was a man who worked, cared for and lived an unassuming life of the duties expected of him in that time. Humility. He was bestowed an awesome responsibility and like a real man. Didnt need credit for a job well done. I am sure when the word got out in Nazareth about Mary being pregnant and it “probably wasnt his” he probably had to deal with gossip, some side eyes and gossip about his own manhood and his wife’s “infidelity” (according to them)
He believed what the angel had spoken.
As for your comment Derek ” the least among us is our leader”
Nonsense. This is where I believe you are a bit “off the mark”. Anyone who reads the Bible “as is” can see these very basic and clear intentions of all that is written there.
In the eyes of the world, you are the least among us, but you lead us nonetheless. You open the Word to us and we receive it. I’ve said this to you before, and though you scoffed at it then, it remains true.
Barclays. Both Mary and Joseph believed what the angels had said. They knew scorn would come. Also, in an earthly sense. They knew they would pretty much “only have each other” at this point. A model perhaps of marriage in a holy sense? A model of “trusting god”? A model of how “creation” is supposed to work together in this sense?
Didnt notice anything that said “Joseph would require x amount of sex per week, or as a man he will die”
Submission was required of both of them (uh! oh!!! complementarianism !!!! Blue illed marriage!!!!) Joseph didnt go to the priests in the Temple and tell them this because he knew in their “staggering intellect” he would be berated and shamed “yes an angel came to you, right. get out of here or wash my feet…..who are you???”
Let me be very clear to you Derek and others:
Im no mystic. Im not some sort of “prophet” and I am the worst example of a christian, even when I was practicing. I know “the bible” on a surfical level. I know many of the stories told, and the only context I may have is that I am an avid armchair student of history. I dont have any more insight than anyone else, and many of my insights have been “proven” wrong by scripture quoted back to me.
I believe and know that what Jesus said in the version I have read (KJV) is this:
In the end we have a sorrowful savior who took it upon himself in the end, not because he had to….but because he loved his father. The real. It models a perfect walk of culture and a people of how god wanted us all to be. Father to son, parent to children, sibling to sibling, husband to wife, a hand to man…..a heart to god.
Jesus in his ministry (which I do believe, I do believe he walked the earth) knew sin, cultures, empires, languages, customs existed…he also knew all of them were temporary…..he was showing us how to transcend that through God alone. It could only be through a man like Jesus. In his form, his parents, his trade, his status. His appearance. “He hath no comeliness that we may be attracted to him….” (Jesus was an average looking man, if that). He *grew* in wisdom and stature. He didnt fall out of the womb and knew at birth “I will take the sins of the world, I am the son of God himself” (He didnt know his mission….until he matured). He prayed (why did he have to? He was god in the flesh?) all to please the Father and demonstrate to us how to live and speak to god in a manner that was so revolutionary at the time.
That is what I know. I dont recall what king said to whom. I cant remember who and what apostle said to who. I dont know what “saint” on a painted piece of wood did in 934 AD.
I just know his mission was just. He cause beyond comprehension and its impact felt today.
Nobody’s calling you a prophet, but you do “get it”, which is a lot more than most Christians can say. Open your heart to the graces people are trying to give you, or to put it more crudely, shut up and take your compliment 🙂
I don’t care if you think you haven’t earned it, you’re getting it anyway. Enjoy.
Bardelys,
In the past I have said that he has the gift of prophecy. It is to this that he is referring.
What you call “getting it” is, IMO, the gift of prophecy manifesting itself rather plainly. I mean, that’s the point of the gift of prophecy in the New Testament. It’s not some magical/mystical/mysterious incomprehensible thing that some people believe it to be, nor is it predicting the future.
Peace,
DR
I am reading Deti’s most recent post in disbelief.
He “now believes all marriage relationships are transactional”
Wow. I was excoriated for stating we are what we do, and using the example that if I sat on the couch and got obese and did nothing but complain Mike’s estimation of me would change.
The response from him on that was scathing.
Deti should not give anyone relationship advice. Because his marriage is a failure and he is miserable.
Twice divorced Scott should not either. Guess that history of “meet cutes” isnt’ so important after all.
From his comment:
…and…
If one thinks that love is transactional and that there is no such thing as unconditional love, then one’s understanding of scripture, and of Ephesians 5 in particular, will be strongly impacted:
When I read that I am to love my wife as I love my own body, I do not see a transaction. Transactional love eviscerates one flesh.
But, not just one’s wife either:
The principle of unconditional love is based on the rather logical observation that, by default, you love yourself without conditions. Indeed, a failure to love oneself is one of the prime signs of mental illness. Things like self-doubt and self-hatred are weaknesses that we recognize as deficient and so strive to overcome!
In a way relationships are transactional, but not in the way that Deti means.
The relationship between the Christian and Christ is one of a one-time, binding covenant. It has conditions, but those conditions are established upon entrance to the covenant and are not renegotiable.
The relationship between a husband and wife is determined by a one-time, binding covenant. It has conditions, but those conditions are determined upon entrance into the covenant and are not renegotiable.
The relationship between a parent and child is implicitly binding by the same act and covenant that binds a husband and wife together. Eventually the child grows and creates their own covenant with their own spouse, thus creating the further bonds of kinship spoken of in Leviticus (and Genesis).
The “transactions” are intended to be permanent. What Deti believes by “transaction” is that everything is negotiable. Nothing is permanent and everything is temporary. It goes against the very spirit of the greatest law.
I’m not going to argue against loving oneself/ loving one’s spouse.
However, there are certainly behaviors that make it far easier to love (in either case).
And the Bible does highlight those “lovable” behaviors pretty thoroughly.
It starts with marrying the girl/man with a good foundation of moral principles, not just “the hot one”.
[/rant]
I thought this article was interesting.
(couples that pray together stay together, h/t Oscar)
http://drstoop.com/the-couple-that-prays-together/
“One of the outcomes of that study led to the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, in Phoenix, Arizona (www.nameonline.net) to report that when couples prayed together on a daily basis, less than 1% of those couples would end up getting a divorce. The numbers were 1 out of 1156.”
In a society with a 33+ percent divorce rate, that is pretty amazing.
Mike and I both pray every day but not always together. Think this will become another daily habit.
When I posted elsewhere of Anabaptist churches with divorce rates below 1%, not a single person wanted to move to Lancaster to join a Mennonite church.
Most of my high school peers married. Very few have divorced. Quite a few have large families.
When I posted that Anabaptists churches with many babies and toddlers exist—my parent’s church had more than one baby born per month during a recent year—no one wanted to email me for details, let alone join my parent’s church.
I did receive some skepticism that such things were even possible. Deti declined:
That is awesome.
I met a Mennonite from Lancaster once on a flight (our sons were babies then, she was a grandma of something like 16 at the time).
Her last name was Stong.
Their sons were engineers (think they had 8 sons).
Her spouse was in Nigeria with a couple of them making a bridge for a village, so they could get to a neighboring village safely (it went over an alligator infested swamp). Very good people.
My daughter in law’s mother is from Ecuador, her father was raised Mennonite. That family is very devout. And every time I talk to my son he is over the moon happy with his wife/life.
I should probably add, when I said “that is awesome” I meant the Lancaster Mennonite background (and offer to help).
I didn’t mean Deti’s refusal was awesome. That was simply a foregone conclusion.
I was barely acquainted with my son’s wife when he called and said he found the girl he wanted to marry. It was…beyond shocking (since I had no idea he dated anyone at the time, and I had briefly met her when they were friends…which, incidentally is the way Mike and I also met). I only recently knew her father was raised Mennonite (in California). I hope to get to know them better, they are good people.
Pingback: A Comment from History, Reviewed