Rethinking the Manosphere and MRAs

I first discovered the existence of MRAs about 7 years ago. At first I was overjoyed to find that there were so many people “like me” who hated feminism and were strongly opposed to feminism just like I was. To see people refer to feminism as “female supremacy” was exhilarating as it was a thought I had thought many times myself but had never seen expressed before openly. I thought I was all alone in the wilderness but after specifically searching for “patriarchy” and “anti-feminist” online I quickly ran into the MRA phenomenon and could tell it was quite big by the number of different websites and forums on offer. I was in heaven, it was great, I was “not alone” anymore.

This initial love affair with the MRAs ended after about 2 weeks; after I discovered to my shock and horror and bafflement that MRAs did not like Chivalry (the male duty to provide for and protect women). Not only did they not like Chivalry they seemed to despise it with a great passion, every last one of them. This enraged me. “How dare they claim to support patriarchy and claim to be against the social harms feminism is causing while at the same time being opposed to the precise thing that makes patriarchy good, the precise thing that society needs most in order to recover from the wounds of feminism and make society and family and relationships between men and women good again; Chivalry being that thing” I thought to myself.

Right away after discovering the MRA dislike of Chivalry I set myself up as being in opposition against the MRAs; as being pro-patriarchy and pro-Chivalry and anti-MRA. Something strange was going on with the MRAs. They were manipulators. They wanted the benefits of patriarchy but not the responsibilities of patriarchy. They wanted gender equality based on denying their responsibilities and duties towards women. They were consistently opposed to the protective privileges granted to women that were actually derivative of the patriarchal mindset of “protecting women” implying that they were opposed to feminism because of the lingering patriarchal elements still within mainstream feminism; that they were in effect more feminist than the feminists themselves, more stridently in favor of gender equality than the feminists themselves, more opposed to true traditional patriarchy than the feminists themselves.

So these past 7 years in terms of my self-identity I have seen myself as being against the MRAs on the basis of the Chivalry issue; their being opposed to Chivalry means that they are opposed to patriarchy which then means that they are opposed to what I stand for; what I stand for being patriarchy.

I thought of MRAs as being 4th Wave Feminists, the next stage of feminism, a more extreme level of social deterioration whereby the last vestiges of patriarchal protection of women are being attacked.

I am now thinking that I am probably wrong about this view of MRAs and the Manosphere in general. I am now thinking that MRAs are actually the first wave of patriarchy in the secular realm; that they are the beginning of patriarchy rather than being the end stage of feminism. That the MRA phenomenon and the broader Manosphere in general is actually the emergence and starting phase of patriarchy in the secular realm. There being a parallel emergence of patriarchy in the religious realm going on at the same time.

There are 3 different things I ran across that triggered this insight; this new way of looking at the MRA phenomenon.

The first was a post in the Relationships forum of Reddit (referred to in TheBluePill Reddit forum) with the headline “My (25F) Boyfriend (27M) has become controlling, rude and sexist out of nowhere. What do I do?” The subject of the post was about a woman whose long term boyfriend had just recently discovered the “Red Pill” and the changes in the man this led to that were upsetting the woman and threatening the relationship the woman was in. The key surprise for me in reading this post was that the man was “taking charge” in his relationship with the woman in a patriarchal or traditional direction including the demand / expectation that the woman would play the role of being a stay-at-home mother in the future. In addition the man was clumsy and awkward in the new role he was assigning to himself. In commentary about this post in TheBluePill subreddit Smurfcorp says:

“I don’t even think most RPW [Red Pill Women] would put up with it either, honestly. They want strong, assertive, traditional men to lead them, but they don’t like RP men and even say outright that they wouldn’t want to date them. It’s…strange.”

To which Perritoburrito responds:

“It’s because TRP are not strong, assertive, or traditional. If they were strong they wouldn’t have a full fledged melt down when every little thing doesn’t go their way. Being assertive requires confidence, otherwise it’s simply aggression born of insecurity. And finally, when most people think of a “traditional” man they think Captain America: someone set and resolute in their values but also fair and just. TRP is none of that.

I’m not really into that whole deal, but I understand why RPW can seem confusing on the surface.”

The importance of all this from my perspective was that The Red Pill subreddit was encouraging men to be patriarchal and to take control in their relationships with women and to take on the responsibility of financially supporting their wives to enable them to be stay-at-home mothers for their future children; this is what the actions of the man who was influenced by TheRedPill forum at Reddit shows. In addition to this the man newly influenced by TheRedPill showed evidence of incompetence and apparently in general the men at TRP (The Red Pill) are “new at” the overall enterprise of being a “Red Pill Man.”

The concept of “The Red Pill” is a central theme in manosphere ideology and this little episode shows both incompetence and inexperience among Red Pill men and in addition shows that The Red Pill has a great deal of patriarchal traditional content in what it advocates for and teaches.

After this discovery that maybe The Red Pill is better than I thought it was; more healthy and idealistic and positive than I thought it was; I decided to investigate TheRedPill forum on Reddit more closely and this led to my second discovery of importance; a post at TheRedPill titled “Your struggle and pain? Women neither understand nor give much of a fuck.” This was a hugely popular post at TheRedPill indicating that the sentiments expressed were widely shared and likely indicative of the community as a whole. The post was brilliant with a lot of “manly” attitude and it demonstrated a patriarchal “take charge” mindset quite well. In addition the post “spoke to me” quite well in terms of my own feelings of struggle in terms of what it takes to be “good enough” for a woman. This post made me feel “welcomed” into TheRedPill community; like I would fit in there. It also spoke to my desire to be a winner; that the effort to improve myself to be worthy of a woman was me fighting the good fight. The most significant part of the post was that it indicated to me that what drove men to TRP was the same thing that drove me to embrace patriarchy so long ago; that I had to overcome the societal brainwashing of feminism to be able to get a woman.

The third discovery of importance was me listening to the David Futrelle interview with Matt Binder on The Majority Report where Futrelle gave an overview of what is going on with the Men’s Rights Movement and various different aspects of the Manosphere overall. This interview highlighted to me that my personal history actually matches up quite well with what is going on in the Manosphere overall and that the Manosphere is a multi-faceted phenomena made up of several different growing branches indicating that “something big” is happening with this Manosphere phenomenon and that indeed the underlying drive of the Manosphere is patriarchal in orientation. Of particular interest to me was this little snippet where Futrelle talks about the MGTOWs or Men Going Their Own Way (22:23 to 23:10 in the video):

“They don’t go anywhere, they’re tied to women by this hatred, but it’s a hatred mixed with desire and that’s what I think gives it its sort of added nasty punch. They’re angry at women because women can say no to them and women do say no to them and that they can’t have women on their, the men’s, own terms. I think that this kind of sexual frustration is actually a major part of the motivation for not just Men Going Their Own Way and obviously the Pick Up Artists but also for a lot of Men’s Rights Activists.”

I’ve always thought of the MGTOWs as rather ridiculous, the most libertarian and anti-family of the whole bunch. The ones most opposed to traditionalism and in particular the traditional duties and responsibilities of the man in marriage; hence their “going their own way” abandonment of their masculine male duty and role. This quote from Futrelle however puts the MGTOWs in a new light. It indicates that even the MGTOWs are patriarchal in their intent; that what they want is a relationship with women on their own terms, to be dominant in their relationships with women. The MGTOW attitude then is that women are not expected to live up to “their end of the bargain” in a marriage so that marriage is now exploitative and dangerous for men so that they will then Go Their Own Way and avoid marriage altogether in response.

Even more striking is David Futrelle’s observation that MGTOWs and PUAs and MRAs and really the whole Manosphere bunch are in large part motivated by their sexual frustrations and failures / difficulties with women. This definitely fits in with me; definitely the origin of my decision to become a supporter of patriarchy was to overcome my failures with women and become more desirable in women’s eyes. Furthermore, years ago, in thinking about what would probably be the driver for the return to patriarchy my expectation was that men’s romantic failure with women would be the ultimate fundamental driving force behind the coming patriarchal revolution; that men’s romantic failure with women under the system of feminism would be the mechanism by which support for patriarchy would grow larger and larger and eventually take over. Now here is Futrelle stating point blank that in his opinion it is romantic failure with women that is the unifying theme behind the rise of the Men’s Rights Movement and associated phenomenon. This being exactly what I predicted now apparently coming true!

The real breakthrough or insight was understanding how it could be that the manosphere in general is so messed up. If the manosphere is patriarchy or inspired by a drive for patriarchy then why all the woman bashing and hatred of women, the hostility towards Chivalry, the negativity of just wanting to withdraw from society rather than trying to create something positive, the blatant advocacy for gender equality and the focus on fighting against “unfair privileges” for women that serve to benefit society and are in accordance with residual if fading patriarchal moral principles of providing for and protecting women? What the manosphere advocates for is far far removed from patriarchy and is often nasty and downright destructive of relations between the sexes. Furthermore it is very selfish and defensive and only seems to take men’s interests into account. How can patriarchy be so messed up like this? How can all this mess be associated with or come from a drive towards patriarchy?

The answer is that the men becoming MRAs and entering into the different myriad aspects of the Manosphere are first of all reacting to abuse from women and failure with women, in other words they are low functioning and under attack to begin with; and that furthermore they have no idea what they are doing in trying to build success for themselves and for society overall because they are inventing everything from scratch. They are starting from ground zero with no guidance or teaching regarding how to do things right. In addition they are enduring withering attacks from everyone around them trying to force them back into the feminist mold that led to their failures and problems in the first place.

When looking back at the patriarchy of the 1950s or better yet the 1850s what you see is very high functioning stuff with well developed and strictly adhered to gender roles that developed over a very long period of time to reach their high functioning state to begin with. Looking at the Manosphere today is totally different because there is no background of prior existing high social functioning; instead the Manospherian has to start from ground zero making it up as he goes along in a sea of lies and hostility with a personal history of failure and abuse that led to his need to rebel against feminism in the first place.

That is the explanation for why the manosphere doesn’t look like traditional patriarchy at all even though the manosphere is in actuality the beginning of patriarchy and the expression of patriarchy in the secular realm.

Patriarchy is also growing and emerging within the religious sphere let us not forget; most prominently in the form of Christian Complementarian churches as exemplified by the Acts 29 Network. Patriarchy however is far more functional in its current religious expression in the form of Christian Complementarianism than it is in its secular expression of the Manosphere; this being because of the cultural history the church can fall back on in trying to understand and reconstitute positive gender roles for men and women within marriage and other advantages of Christianity such as obedience to God serving as ones moral center point and the ability to organize effective sub-cultures based on physical churches that one attends.

The manosphere being the beginning of patriarchy as expressed in the secular realm has big big implications. It means that the manosphere will simply grow and grow and grow without limit until it takes over the culture overall side by side with the parallel never ending growth that can be expected in Complementarianism and Patriarchy within Christianity. It also means that over time the manosphere will become more and more functional and closer and closer to traditional patriarchy. The move of the manosphere towards traditional patriarchy can already be seen; the surprisingly good stuff coming from The Red Pill at Reddit being an example of this.

So I guess the moral of the story is that I am seeing the manosphere much more hopefully now compared to how I saw it a week ago; that the manosphere is the beginning of patriarchy rather than being an extension or continuation of feminism. This would indicate that perhaps I should rethink my oppositional identity of seeing myself as anti-MRA.

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Gender Politics Analysis and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Rethinking the Manosphere and MRAs

  1. The manosphere is a huge and diverse group made up of many different belief sets. There are some very good MRA’s who care about men’s rights and there are also some very disturbed red pills who care only about exploiting women.

  2. Yes, I suppose the question is whether the Red Pills who care only about exploiting women are hopeless and damned in a moral sense or whether they are just ignorant and confused and will “learn” and “grow” and become higher functioning and more moral over time. If my hypothesis is right, that current MRAs are what might be called Stage 1 Patriarchy; then predictably on average the MRA will become more high functioning and more moral over time. The Manosphere being a kind of pyramid with a small number of high functioning MRAs close to traditional patriarchy and close to a religious understanding of patriarchy with a large number of MRAs at the bottom who are more angry and more defensive and more selfishly self-preservation oriented and who also still think in terms of gender equality and what is “fair” in their overall outlook of things. The development process then being an MRA who starts at the low functioning bottom overtime improving himself and moving up the hierarchy; moving towards the gold standard of religious or pseudo-religious traditional patriarchy.

  3. I don’t know Jesse. I don’t mind the ones that want women at home and think men should be assertive and control everything. Men being “sexist” is a good thing but there’s still too much diversity in their movement just like there is a lot of diversity in feminism. Men have no love and caring for women today like they did in the past and I have no faith that they ever will. I’ve seen some pro-patriarchy articles on some MRA sites and have even linked to a few because they promote traditional values with women being home but they are still in the minority. Until traditional gender roles actually become a main tenet of MRAism I will not stand behind it.

  4. theasdgamer says:

    PUA bloggers make a positive contribution by telling the truth about hypergamy, sexual attraction (which counters Blue Pill nonsense with which men have been programmed), and mating dynamics. All are helpful for men in the current context.

    Some weak intellects want to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to PUAs and MRAs. That’s poor thinking.

  5. advancedatheist says:

    I just discovered your blog. Damn, I like the way you think. Secular patriarchy makes perfect sense because women exist, and men can observe them. You don’t need to believe in a god to see that the patriarchal wisdom tradition got a lot of things right about the respective natures of men and women based on uncomplicated empiricism. This system worked to keep the human species in business in a harsh and dangerous world over thousands of years. It turns out that our allegedly unenlightened ancestors knew their business after all when they shamed sluts, shunned bastards and made their daughters marry as virgins: They learned the hard way that women will readily abuse the privilege of sexual freedom and threaten to make the tribe go extinct.

    • Hi there advancedatheist. I’m glad you found my blog. 🙂 Searching your name on Google it seems like you agree with me quite a bit; certainly more so than the average atheist. It seems like you are a prolific commenter on other people’s websites but that you don’t have your own homebase, your own independent blog. Have you ever thought of “settling down” and starting up your own blog?

  6. advancedatheist says:

    Perhaps you can help me with an insight that I don’t know anyone else has articulated:

    People misunderstand the whole incel phenomenon, especially the adult male virgin part of it, because they frame it as a bunch of loser guys who complain about not getting laid.

    But that misses the real tragedy here: Incels don’t suffer from sexual deprivation as such; they suffer from the deprivation of experiences that they need for a vital area of personal growth and development. The skills men acquire from having sexual relationships with women starting at an appropriate age don’t exist in isolation; these skills become essential for knowing how to deal with women successfully in general. Ceteris paribus, women respect the sexually experienced and confident man over the inexperienced man who projects unease around women.

    And I think that sheds light on why women just don’t give a crap about the growing population of incels. They want to evict more and more of the male population from ever having sexual relationships with them because the eviction deprives these men of patriarchal skills that lead to competent male presence and authority, hence turning these men into “losers” that women can disrespect and disregard.

    Ironically we live in a psychology-dominate culture which emphasizes self-actualization and personal fulfillment, but mainly for women who pursue feminist-approved avenues in life. The feminism-oriented culture we have now has resulted in malign neglect of the needs of men who wind up as incels.

  7. As far as the Incel thing. I think the root of it is bad home environments combined with feminist cultural messages. The bad home environment may encourage weakness in the boy while growing up and then the feminist cultural messages telling men to be weak compounds the problem so that some men are so weak relationship skill wise in particular regarding their masculinity and in terms of any kind of positive purpose that they might be able to serve in a woman’s life that they end up pretty much shut off from romantic access to women entirely. The thing is feminism creates home environments for boys that will tend to weaken the boy’s masculine development with feminism then compounding the problem with the broad effort to weaken masculine ability of men in general. As feminism continues this weakening of men just gets more and more severe leading to greater numbers of men being severely incapable of being attractive to women; hence the Incel problem. The solution to the Incel problem? Patriarchy of course as patriarchy is the means by which a man can grow and improve his masculinity thereby making himself attractive and desirable to women at long last.

    • advancedatheist says:

      Atheist bloggers don’t want to discuss the incel trend in secular, developed societies because they can’t blame it on religion, and I think they know on some level that the cause really lies in the feminism that they have a prior commitment to defending as the “rational” and “enlightened” view for atheists to have about women. I kept hammering at this point on Hemant Mehta’s blog until he banned me. No great loss. Atheists like Mehta just reveal themselves as hypocrites and frauds who don’t really care about “free thinking,” despite their explicit propaganda.

      Ironically we saw an incel in the family of one of the firebrand atheists’ great heroes, Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Madalyn in her Playboy interview back in the 1960’s says that she thought girls should have the freedom to become sexually active as early as 13, if they wish, and the boys at 15, allowing for the fact that girls tend to mature sexually earlier than boys.

      Wow, what a cool, sex-positive mom, you might think. I bet her sons had a blast growing up. Well, perhaps her older son did. William J. Murray knocked up his girlfriend around the age of 17, and the resulting daughter, Robin, wound up adopted by Madalyn because her parents didn’t want her. William later converted to Christianity and he made a living attacking his mother, though that has clearly stopped working since her abduction and murder by another atheist and accomplices in 1995. .

      But the younger son, Jon Garth Murray,never moved away from home, he apparently never had a girlfriend, and he worked for his mother’s organization as an atheist activist. Around 1990 I talked on the phone with two members of American Atheists who knew Madalyn and her family, namely John Sikos and Frank Zindler, and they independently told me their suspicions about Jon’s adult virginity. Robin apparently never had a boyfriend, either, and the fact that she, Madalyn and Jon all lived together without outside relationships probably contributed to their murderers’ decision to kidnap them, extort money and then do away with them; the murderers knew that no boyfriend or girlfriend would become alarmed by their disappearance and pressure the police to investigate.

      What a disappointment. Madalyn might have promoted a somewhat utopian view of sex as an atheist, but that utopia didn’t exist under her own roof. Instead Jon and Robin lived pretty much like sexually abstinent Christians.

  8. Does anyone have any real statistics on how many incels are out there? Most incels probably want to believe that they are part of a much larger group, but is there any hard science behind the claim that this is a widespread phenomenon?

    I also wonder how many incels are really incels. I knew a guy in college who set his sights on the most beautiful girl around- the one all the guys wanted- and he decided that no other woman was worthy of his time or attention. Predictably, she did not agree to marry him. He is 45 and still single, possibly still a virgin and very bitter. I wouldn’t be surprised if he considered himself an incel, but he isn’t one. There were girls around who would have gone out with him, but he felt those girls were not worth his time. His celibacy was totally voluntary and self chosen, but he may not see it that way.

    • advancedatheist says:

      Sexologists admit that they don’t know:

      Who is the 40-year-old virgin and where did he/she come from? Data from the National Survey of Family Growth.

      “Little is known about young and middle aged adults who have never engaged in sexual intercourse.”

      Prevalence and predictors of sexual inexperience in adulthood.

      “The emergence of partnered sexual behavior represents an important developmental transition. However, little is known about individuals who remain sexually inexperienced well into adulthood.”

      I have the impression that sex researchers probably don’t want to know about the extent of the incel/adult male virginity phenomenon, because that could lead them to crimethink about the role of feminism as a cause.

      • Thank you for the information, advancedatheist 🙂 According to the first study, 13.9% of men aged 25-45 are virgins, as opposed to 8.9% of women the same age. The study found that both men and women are far more likely to be virgins if they attend church on a regular basis; the second study found that being a virgin was highly correlated with non attraction, which I assume means that many of the people who have never had sex just don’t have much of a sex drive. It seems as though adult virgins are a small minority, and many or most choose virginity for various reasons; these studies do not seem to support the idea that involuntary celibacy is a widespread phenomenon.

      • I am horrible with links, but if you google “how many sexual partners is normal”, about halfway down the first page is an article from NBC news titled “10 interesting sex facts”, (or something like that- you will know it when you see it :). According to this article, the average woman has four sexual partners in her lifetime, and the average man has seven. Now, I believe that people should wait until marriage, but the evidence just does not support the idea that women are having more sex than men, or that 80% of women are sleeping with 20% of men and forcing all the rest into involuntary celibacy. The facts do not seem to line up with the narrative that MRAs are promoting.

      • advancedatheist says:

        .>It seems as though adult virgins are a small minority, and many or most choose virginity for various reasons; these studies do not seem to support the idea that involuntary celibacy is a widespread phenomenon.

        Gay men amount to no more than 4 percent of the male population, tops. Yet for such a tiny minority, they have gotten WAY, WAY, WAY more attention than adult male virgins. . And for some reason we have seen the emergence of a propaganda machine to present gays in a positive light which makes them look far more numerous than their actual numbers. On top of they they have all kinds of institutional support, including Supreme Court decisions in their favor. Yet gay men for the most part deplete our society’s resources because they deeply discount the future and spend their wealth on personal hedonism instead of building up capital and investing it into the families they don’t start. Not to mention that they put tremendous burdens on our health care system.

        Setting aside the question of how we have gotten to this absurd situation regarding such a tiny and parasitic sexual minority in the U.S;, you have to wonder why this minority has become so favored by our elites while adult male virgins and incels with normal desires have become the freaks, weidos, expendables and losers. :

        If adult male virgins had a support system like the gays’ which presented them in positive ways and defended their interests, a lot of these men could probably find women to marry, start families with them and become productive and upstanding members in the community who feel invested in its future.

      • But what exactly do adult male virgins want, and what laws do they want passed? My understanding is that MRAs would like women to find them more attractive. There is no law anyone can pass to make that happen. One of the reasons feminists and gays have been so successful is because they always present a clear, simple agenda that can be voted on. This is why I mentioned affirmative action for women in an earlier comment; there is actually something that can be done about that through the political and legal process.

  9. Pingback: Could MRAism Ever be OK? | What's Wrong With Equal Rights?

  10. advancedatheist says:

    Reportedly a quarter of unmarried Japanese men in their 30’s have had no sexual experience, a figure that wouldn’t sound unusual for a traditional, sex-regulating religious society like, say, Egypt.

    But Japan? Japan has a normal male to female sex ratio, a liberal sexual ethic (though prostitutes there apparently can’t legally offer intercourse, only other kinds of sex acts), and it lies within easy flying distance of other Asian countries with sex tourism industries.

    I suppose you could write this off as a peculiarity of conditions in Japan, but I doubt it. Japan has a funny way of living “20 minutes into the future,” in that what happens in other developed countries often happens there first. If Japan has started to fill up with adult male virgins, that could portend what other developed country will do in another generation or two.

  11. advancedatheist says:

    I’d like to know how many American men age 25 and older have had to get ALL of their sexual experience with prostitutes because they can’t get into “organic” sexual relationships with women, namely, with women who feel attracted to them.

    These men don’t qualify as adult male virgins, obviously. But the fact that they have had to resort to alienated sexual encounters with escorts shows that they have basically the same problems with women as male virgins. If anything, prostitution partially obscures the full extent of the incel phenomenon.

  12. If you google “what percentage of men have been to prostitutes”, articles will come up which indicate that about 14% of American men have been with a prostitute at some point, but only 1% have been with a prostitute in the last year. Men who have been with a prostitute are less likely to be married, but also less likely to report having never been married- they are often either divorced or separated. Men who have been in the military are significantly more likely to have been with a prostitute; if the military guys I have known are an indication, this is because military guys are often stationed in non English speaking countries.

    There is no evidence to indicate that significant numbers of men visit prostitutes because they have no other options. Even if we consider the full 14% of men who have been with a prostitute, all of them put together are a small minority of the male population.

  13. As long as MRAs continue making wild claims that cannot be backed up with scientific evidence, their future is probably not bright. In a recent post, The Radical One said that the philosophy of MRAs struck her as a faith based religion. It strikes me that way too. MRAs make some pretty incredible claims that just cannot be backed up in any way.

    It’s too bad, because there definitely is a need for men to speak up. For instance, Affirmative action for women is really low hanging fruit, and many women would support getting rid of it. But MRAs seem to be more interested in convincing other men that all women are inherently evil than they are in pursuing achievable goals.

    Of course, there have always been crazy feminists who believe that all men are evil, but they were and are offset by more sensible feminists who keep the crazies out of sight as much as possible. And, feminists benefit from a media that helps them to keep their crazier members out of sight. MRAs will never receive that kind of help from the media.

    • Elizabeth says:


    • advancedatheist says:

      An accurate characterization of women’s average behavior which shows how they tend to screw over men doesn’t make women “evil.” It just shows that men have to know these hazards when they get involved with women in modern societies.

      While I would like to see the rollback on women’s sexual freedom because women have clearly abused their privileges and they would make better wives without premarital sexual adventures, I have also seen in my own family how virgin brides can go bad on their husbands after a few years. My father was 31 and my mother was 19 when they married in May, 1958, and I was born in November of the following year. (Do the math) I feel pretty confident about Mom’s virginity at the time of her marriage, since she came from a hillbilly family from Arkansas that moved to Tulsa and she still lived with her parents. She met my pharmacist father when she took a job as a clerk at the drugstore he worked at. And she was fat and not very attractive to begin with; Dad made her get the fillings she needed after they got married because her family was too poor and ignorant to go to the dentist. So she simply didn’t have the time to live as a single woman.

      Yet she divorced my father in 1983 after my sister and I had grown up. I credit her for staying with Dad for me and my sister’s sake. But she turned on my father later.

      • Anecdotal examples do not provide an accurate representation. I could provide plenty of anecdotal examples of men behaving badly; that doesn’t mean that all men are bad. What MRAS are doing is similar to what feminists do when they talk about rape culture: blaming all men for the bad behavior of a minority.

  14. Elizabeth says:

    Red pill is bullshit! Pro abusive and rape philosophy. Why support it?

  15. infowarrior1 says:

    ”I’ve always thought of the MGTOWs as rather ridiculous, the most libertarian and anti-family of the whole bunch. The ones most opposed to traditionalism and in particular the traditional duties and responsibilities of the man in marriage; hence their “going their own way” abandonment of their masculine male duty and role. This quote from Futrelle however puts the MGTOWs in a new light. It indicates that even the MGTOWs are patriarchal in their intent; that what they want is a relationship with women on their own terms, to be dominant in their relationships with women.”

    Case in point:

    Oh and it appears that complementarianism is being throttled throughly:

  16. Regarding the “The Case for Patriarchy” video I would say it is pretty good but it does have an insulting attitude towards women and ignores the fact that women are superior to men in important ways; in the feminine sphere. Men are superior in the masculine realm while women are superior in the feminine realm. The video pretty much ignores the feminine realm as it relates to women’s contribution to the family and society overall. Also male authority is in service to women; to be ethical male authority has to be directed to the woman’s benefit. Male dominance is necessary to protect men from being abused or taken advantage of by women but the male dominance itself must be directed towards the woman’s benefit in the context of the woman’s relationship with the man. Basically the man uses him dominant position to protect his own interests and serve the woman’s interests at the same time. Women’s interests are superior to men’s interests while men’s authority is superior to women’s authority. Men are the servant leaders of women.

    Regarding the post where Empathologism is bashing the Christian Complementarians as being feminists; I would take Driscoll’s and Rainey’s side against Dalrock and the typical Christian MRA. “Manning Up” is exactly what men need to do in order to fulfill their Godly role and purpose as men.

  17. infowarrior1 says:

    Problem is when feminists or modern society is talking about “manning up” it means the opposite to the words used itself. In their view being a sucker supplicating to women and being a mule to be used and disposed of is being a man. Which is actually not objectively manning up. Which is having and cultivating strength,honor,mastery and and courage. To build civilization and strong families and serving those you rule (Which by the way does not involve indulging those under you charge and letting them get away with evil, for lack of chastisement for wrongdoing is ultimately unloving.)

    There is real masculinity and manning up. But I cringe when people who have only nafarious agendas change the meaning of such words to serve their own agendas which destroy men and masculinity.

    Oh and servant leadership unfortunately has been made to mean being your wifes chauffer driving where she wants you to go. Rather than the model of christ and the church.

    Where Christ pursues his own purposes and his wife follows him in that purpose while he protects and provides for her needs not necessarily all that she wants of course.

  18. I am impressed Infowarrior; there is not a single thing you said in your comment that I would disagree with.

    Indeed the exhortation to “Man Up!” is used by both feminists and Christian Complementarians. Feminist “manning up” is guilt tripping or shaming men to serve women more on the woman’s own terms. True “manning up” is taking charge of the situation with an idealistic orientation of service and duty to benefit your family and your relationship with the woman whether the woman likes it or not. Feminist “manning up” is indeed abusive to the man and should be rejected. The point is to serve the woman based on the man’s goals and objectives; the man incorporating the woman’s well being into his overall vision of what kind of father and husband he wants to be.

    I think Christian MRAs often view all calls to “man up” as being suspiciously feminist and so they reject all “manning up” and tough love criticism of men. This being a big mistake that makes it look like Christian MRAs only care about men and can’t be trusted to look after or guard women’s interests.

    I think the key thing to look for is who’s in charge. If the man is in charge, good. If the woman is in charge, bad. The man needs to be judged according to objective standards to determine whether he is acting morally in regards to how he is treating his wife. The test of the man’s virtue is not the declared judgment of his wife but is instead his adherence to the duties God has placed upon him.

  19. Dar says:

    I disagree about the MRA’s. I am always coming across them on the internet comment sections, and on Youtube, anfd they seem to be getting crazier and more extreme.

    The Red Pill gang are tied/associated with Roosh, who basically believes “Women are rotten so let’s just use them sexually and throw them away”. They want men to be more assertive, but only in being better able to use women.

    No,I’m afraid the MRA’s are just men trying to play the same game as the feminists.

  20. advancedatheist says:

    I have a problem with the attempt to downplay the male virgin/incel phenomenon by pointing to surveys about the rarity of male virgins above a certain age. If you have two 30 year old guys, and one of them has had only one sexual experience in his life, but with a prostitute, while the other man has had sex about 100 times in the organic situation with women who feel attracted to him, they might both wind up lumped into the category of the study as “not virgins.” But other than that, you simply can’t compare these men’s respective experiences. I would like to see more nuanced studies about this to shed light on the men who have a really hard time getting into sexual relationships even if they passed the arbitrary threshold of one act of sexual intercourse.

  21. Pingback: I am an MRA and a part of the Manosphere | Secular Patriarchy

  22. Pingback: My New Appreciation for Dalrock | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s