This is part of a series. See part 1, part 2, part 4, part 5, and part 6. Note: links will go live upon publication.

After I wrote “Sigma Frame Abandons the Patriarchy,” Jack responded with two comments on his own blog. In “Constructive Criticism, Part 2,” I responded to his tips for improving my writing. Now I’m going to read (for the first time) and respond his comment responding to my original article. Let’s see if it is constructive criticism.

I routinely edit my posts for clarity and to correct errors. As noted in Part 2, I understand that I make many errors and so I do my best to subject my ideas to critical examination. This is absolutely required to avoid self-righteousness.

Alright. We’re going to see if Jack can substantiate that claim.

First, let’s get one thing out of the way quickly. Whether or not I provide a solution to the chosen topic of the post has no bearing at all on my criticisms of the claims being made within that post. None of my points are dependent on me providing answers to how a man is supposed to vet a woman (as if, by assumption, there actually were some universal rules that could accomplish this goal). For example…

…the truth or fiction of this axiom cannot be altered by providing an alternative. It is wrong all on its own merits.

Jack’s objection is known as deflection. It also exposes his philosophical utilitarianism,^[1] which he has never acknowledged.^[2]

Second, the topic of the post was boundaries and virtue in relationships. The part I was responding to was entitled “The Necessity of Pushing the Boundaries.” My response directly pertained to alleged necessity of pushing boundaries and the virtuousness of doing so. In short, I showed that pushing boundaries was not a necessary part of a Christian Patriarchal vetting process, and that pushing those boundaries was the opposite of virtuous.

I could not have been more on-topic if I had tried.

Third, as I noted, it is a flat contradiction for a man to reject virtuous behavior in an attempt to provide answers on how virtuous a woman is. This “axiom” is self-refuting.

Sheesh! The quote I provided was massive enough. What do you want me to do, quote the whole article?

Well, here is the text I originally quoted:

Now, guess what happens when we include the full context represented by that ellipsis?

That’s the context. And guess what? I mostly agree with all of this. It’s almost a summary of my post. If Jack had stopped his post there, we would have concluded that the axiom was wrong. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation. But, this is followed immediately by the following:

In politics, politicians often engage in double-speak. For example, they might claim to be pro-life at one rally, and then support pro-abortion policies at another rally. When questioned, they can just say that the believe whatever the person questioning wants them to believe while, correctly, noting that they expressed that viewpoint. Nevermind that they also expressed the opposing viewpoint. That’s what’s going on here.

So, after explaining why pushing a woman’s boundaries won’t work, he goes out of is way to explain why those boundaries have to be pressed anyway and why it will work on certain rare modest and chaste women. I presume this is why pressing the boundaries is still a good idea?

To prove this is no fluke, he goes on to emphasize this point:

That’s the context. And if you don’t like the ellipses, stop complaining and go read the original.

So, without pushing the man pushing the physical boundaries, the boundary cannot manifest in this context. For a girl to refuse his physical advances in this context and for a man to have to make subsequent additional checks in this context, the man must have pushed physical boundaries in this context. This is about pushing boundaries through non-verbal “communication” (e.g. having “her breast grabbed on the first date”) in this context.

Does this context help Jack’s situation? Not at all.

Would anything I wrote or concluded have had to change if I had quoted the entire article for context? No it wouldn’t have.

Does this context invalidate what I said? Jack doesn’t say how that might be. Maybe he will show below how I took things out of context. We’ll see. (Update: unfortunately, after finishing reading his comment, he did not)

No, I don’t. I understand full well the contextual differences, which is why I do not work towards bringing about patriarchy. Patriarchy is an incompatible anachronism. It’s impossible to have patriarchy, so wishing it existed (let alone actively working towards it) is the height of futility. But, let’s set that aside for sake of argument.

The key motivational difference here is that I don’t think Patriarchy is Christian. The vast majority of what the Manosphere sees as proper Patriarchy is pagan in origin. So nothing I suggest involves bringing back the patriarchy or any social framework upon which it was built. Even if I were able to propose and enact an environment compatible with patriarchy, I still wouldn’t advocate for patriarchy because it isn’t Christian.

My critiques of the proponents of patriarchy are centered around how their ideas and actions in modern society are, by their very nature, mutually incompatible with the future establishment of any patriarchal community. If they wanted to replace the current modern social systems and replace (or supplement) them with a patriarchal community, they’d have to first stop doing what they are advocating.

As above, this is not my assumption. This is Jack’s false assumption about my assumption.

Had he asked me about it on my blog, I would have quickly explained my assumptions to him. This would have eliminated the need for him to get this wrong on his blog and thus to replicate and compound that error by making all his readers think he was correct. Now the only way to fix it would be to post another retraction (see “Habitually Being Wrong“).

In any case, I’m well aware that he thinks Christian communities should be patriarchal. This is precisely why the non-virtuous approach to establishing boundaries by, paradoxically, trying to violate those boundaries, stands against establishing patriarchy. It’s self-refuting.

Am I the only one who finds this observation to be completely obvious?

Now, this is a very, very important point. Please, if you do nothing else, spend some time thinking about this.

If you want a woman to accept that she should be under the authority of a man (including her father), then you do immeasurable damage by not insisting that she be under the authority of her father before she is rightly your own in matrimony. This means you don’t attempt to cross physical boundaries or any other boundary that is the divine right of her father whether she or her father acknowledge the divine mandate or not. Acknowledging and indulging her (supposed) rebellion to male authority undermines the very foundation of patriarchal authority that you are trying to establish in your life (or your Christian community).

It is simply this:

“Rules for thee, but not for me.”

That’s the hypocrisy. It’s a functional abandonment of “Christian” Patriarchy. A true patriarchal man would demand that she place herself under her father’s authority before he even accept a date from her. If she was under her father’s authority—as scripture allegedly universally mandates—then this would go a long way towards eliminating any need to test her physical boundaries.

If you don’t think that it is necessary for her to be under her father’s authority, then you don’t think father rule is essential. You don’t believe in patriarchy.

This makes no logical sense.

He seems to be drawing false conclusions that are based on his false assumptions about my assumptions. This is why he should have just asked me what I believe if he didn’t understand, because his objections are increasingly only applicable to strawmen.

Let’s make this clear. I reject the following claims:

Jack’s objection here involves me agreeing to one or more of these axioms, but since I don’t, the conclusion that women are above scrutiny does not logically follow from anything I’ve argued. I don’t believe that anyone is above scrutiny. Simple as that.

Irrelevant and fallacious (I repeat myself). It is a sorry attempt at deflection, but serves as a second good example of Jack’s unacknowledged philosophical utilitarianism.^[3]

But let’s assume Jack’s frame for sake of argument, so I can make a critical point.

Let’s say you demand that any woman have placed herself under their father’s authority before you’ll have anything to do with them. Will you ever get even a single date?

If not, then doesn’t that prove to you—without needing to test boundaries—that no virtuous girls exist (for any virtuous girl would put herself under her father’s authority if you asked)? If she won’t put herself under her father’s rule at your request, then she most certainly won’t put herself under your authority for any legitimate reason at your request, as you have no rightful claim to her unless and until you marry her (which, patriarchy claims, should involve her father anyway). If she does put herself under your sole authority, but not her father’s, then that only proves what she really thinks about your authority. Enjoy your future divorce, am I right?

If you can’t find any women who will place themselves under their father’s rule, but still think that virtuous women exist among those women, then patriarchy isn’t quite as essential to being a virtuous woman as you think. Similarly, if you waive the requirement for her to be under her father’s rule, then you don’t view father rule as all that essential after all. Don’t be surprised when she ultimately reveals that she doesn’t respect you.

But what if, by some miracle, you do get a date from a woman who submits to her father’s rule. Doesn’t that prove that testing those physical boundaries was not, in fact, necessary to manifest boundaries?

A man can, right now, demand that his date be under the authority of her father. He can open with that demand before he ever goes on a first date, long before any boundaries have to be set, and he can do it any time after that before he is married. It is 100% within his power, authority, and responsibility to respect the woman’s father’s rights under God’s own mandate. He doesn’t need anyone’s permission—not the woman’s, not the church’s, nor the State’s—to do so. He doesn’t even need to be part of an established patriarchal community. All he has to do is meaningfully believe that patriarchy was established by God and act upon it. And if she refuses to comply, he ends the relationship. But, if he doesn’t find this necessary, then he doesn’t find patriarchy to be essential, as nothing is preventing him from doing so. In fact, this is so easy to do, that every blog that promotes Christian patriarchy should be leading with this “test.” It’s quite telling that they don’t. It is almost… hypocritical.

Something to think about. Maybe Jack can use this as the subject of a future post.

Citation? A little context would be nice.

I call men hypocrites when they believe two mutually contradictory things simultaneously.

For example, it is hypocrisy when a man claims to believe in patriarchal principles but then chooses not to implement them when he has the free choice to do so.

For example, if someone claims that men should have their own domains of authority and then he intrudes on another man’s domain of authority or questions his ultimate authority to do as he decides, that’s self-refuting hypocrisy.

(Keep in mind that I don’t actually personally care if someone intrudes on my domain, I’m just going to respond in-kind. My concern is that the person isn’t being true to their own convictions, and in doing so undermines the foundation of patriarchy.)

But, in Dalrock’s case, it’s actually worse than either of those. He took a man’s most sacred patriarchal right—the right to make a woman his—and suggested that society publicly shame him for his choice by publicly shaming his choice of bride. Neither Dalrock, nor his hordes of supporters, excepting Boxer, saw any problem with this, even though it betrayed the fundamental principles of patriarchy.

The hordes had no problem with hypocrisy, just as long as it only disadvantaged women (and, presumably, men) they didn’t like.

Oh, and Dalrock’s hypocritical anti-patriarchal suggestion was intended for the church community, not society at large.

Uh, no. This is not even close.

As I said above, modern patriarchy is an impossible historical anachronism. There is no way to incrementally—or magically—transform the secular into a patriarchy. Only a bloody revolution could possibly do that, and that’s just not going to happen. And, even if it did, it still wouldn’t involve people in the Manosphere anyway.

My objection gets to the heart of personal integrity. If anything it is a kind of “Man-Up” argument, not the “Blame it on Men” meme (see this thread). To wit:

I’m not blaming the promoters of patriarchy for their problems, I’m simply observing that when given the chances to actually take the authority and responsibility that they explicitly promote, they choose not to do it. It’s not like women (or secular society) are forcing them to do it, they are choosing this on their own. It’s an unforced error.

If you think that patriarchal principles are important, you can’t engage in personal actions that are at odds with patriarchal principles. This is not a difficult concept.

There is a reason that axiom #1…

…gives the game away. Manosphere men are only concerned with the authority of Manosphere man and could care less about the authority of the woman’s father. That’s what this selfish axiom^[4] actually says: just for you. Of Axiom #1, I had said…

…and I maintain that the Manosphere man usurping the woman’s father’s divine right is by design. I really don’t think Jack slipped up and worded it that way by mistake. That really is the axiom of the manosphere, as honestly stated as it ever has been stated. Axiom #1 is aptly named: it is all about “Number One.”

Distorted, indeed!

At the very least the axiom is a tacit acknowledgment that a father’s right over his daughters is not a universally applicable divine mandate, or else every man would be obligated to respect it even if the woman didn’t. By his own words and deeds, Jack isn’t interested in restoring women’s fathers’ authority. As long as the woman respects the man’s authority, that’s all that matters. As Lastmod has long noted, patriarchy isn’t the point at all: successfully bedding a woman and keeping it going indefinitely is. That’s all this is.

Patriarchy is just the smoke screen. Nobody actually cares about patriarchy. If they did, they’d act like it. Rather, they only care that they have power over the women in their life, their “sphere of authority.” That’s not patriarchy, its megalomania.

All the examples I gave are examples where men had expressed their embrace of patriarchy and then later chose to oppose it when they had the actual freedom to choose the patriarchal option. The option they all—Jack, Dalrock, Sharkly, Deti—ultimately chose (instead of patriarchy) was trying to gain, retain, or exercise power.

I’m not referring to a specific community, nor am I interested in trying to establish one.

My thesis is that the Manosphere’s modern reconception of Christian patriarchy is neither Christian nor patriarchy. It doesn’t get more concisely stated than that.

And, since Jack really likes numbered Axioms and Corollaries, here is:

Corollary #1: “Christian Patriarchy” in the manosphere is nothing more than a desire for men—the true number one—to get sex whenever they demand it.

Everything else is window dressing.

Statements like this are useless, nonconstructive ad hominem. It’s a shame Jack resorted to this nonsense rather than address my points.

We’ve now reached the end of his comment, and there isn’t anything constructive for me to work with. Unfortunately, Jack never did cite whatever it is I might have taken out of context. Well, if he changes his mind and his standard-operating-procedure, maybe he’ll post the missing context here.

Let’s summarize what we’ve discussed. The Manosphere Axiom…

…is not merely an approach that does not work with women. If that were the only criticism, I’d have much less to say. But rather, it is inherently anti-patriarchal because it implicitly rejects a woman’s father’s authority. It is fundamentally selfish^[4] and utilitarian, revealing the underlying megalomaniacal focus of the Manosphere. If Manosphere men truly thought that patriarchal principles were important, they wouldn’t engage in personal actions that are at odds with those patriarchal principles.

This is not a difficult concept.

I’ll conclude with a quote from a comment I made in response to Jack about the effeminacy of the Manosphere and how this is anti-patriarchal:

Jack declined to comment.^[5]

Footnotes

^[1] The axiom is concerned only with the utility it provides the man, irrespective of any first- or second-order effects it might have on anyone else. Jack’s statement that I failed to address the core idea—how a man is supposed to accurately read a woman—exposes his utilitarianism, because my comments do not provide, in his opinion, sufficient utility to men.

^[2] I have written about how the Red Pill movement is utilitarian in “The Red Pill is Utilitarian,” “The Disadvantage of Authority,” and “On Suffering.” I’ve noted that utilitarianism is tightly coupled to philosophical leftism in “Positivist Leftism,” “The Political Spectrum is Lefist,” and “Where Do Leftists Get Their Ideas.” I tied these concepts together in “Positivism” where I noted that Sigma Frame is positivist (and so also leftist and utilitarian).

Jack gave just two responses. In the first, he described his goal as the alleviation of suffering, which describes secular utilitarianism precisely. In the second, he failed to acknowledge his utilitarianism.

^[3] I believe that truth has merit all on its own. No further utility is required to justify it. The best ideas are not determined by their greater utility over the ideas they replace.

^[4] After I wrote this article, I saw the following comment:

^[5] Which is why things never improve in the Manosphere. Its false ideas can’t meaningfully be challenged and overturned. After I wrote “Hypergamy is a Myth,” which destroys the common Manosphere belief in “female hypergamy” and the 80/20 principle, it gained no traction at all. Jack is still citing hypergamy, as he did in a recent article.