Rollo Tomassi of The Rational Male has an interesting thought piece up on the future of the manosphere and who gets to control and define the meaning of “The Red Pill” going forward; Tomassi’s article “The Purple Pill.”
Tomassi points out something very clear regarding cultural sensitivities and attitudes; that is that only women are allowed to criticize other women or women’s behaviors in general and that men’s interests are only “legitimate” when the man’s interests are being advocated for by a sympathetic female voice.
Tomassi expresses concern that as Red Pill awareness becomes more mainstream that the Red Pill message will be co-opted by the need for feminine approval and by Red Pill discussions taking place in mixed gender settings with women “policing” the acceptable boundaries of male discourse regarding gender relations; hence the emergence of “The Purple Pill”, a mixture of Blue Pill feminine primacy with the original masculine Red Pill.
A Voice for Men is well known for its prominent female advocates and its Honey Badger Brigade. Helen Smith was the one who appeared on Fox News and talked with Rush Limbaugh regarding her men’s rights sympathetic book “Men on Strike.” Christina Hoff Sommers is the author of “The War Against Boys” criticizing boys’ treatment in the public school system. Now we have the upcoming movie “The Red Pill” about the Men’s Rights Movement being produced by female feminist Cassie Jaye.
In terms of my own career on the internet advocating for traditional patriarchy it is definitely true that I have been surrounded by women. At The Thinking Housewife I served as a support to Laura Wood’s blog; Laura Wood deciding which of my suggested articles she would post and which of my comments she would publish. Then I discovered the Traditional Women’s Rights Advocates (TWRAs) who openly and directly advocated for patriarchy from a secular point of view and I joined them; me being the first male in a group that was previously all women. Then I found that after launching my own blog, my current blog here, that almost all of my commenters have been women. On the one side I’m attacked by women feminists and on the other side I am given support by women traditionalists but either way it is women who choose to comment at my site; the men mostly keeping silent it seems. In these various settings where I always seem to be surrounded by women I have positioned myself as being anti-MRA basically attacking the MRAs for not being conservative enough, not being traditional enough, not taking women’s needs and interests into account.
My thinking regarding why it has been that I have had so many women supporters and so few men supporters is that women are more concentrated on the more traditional higher functioning side of things as the more traditional views are more supportive of women’s interests but at the same time put a high burden on men and so are difficult for men to live up to. There is the more unsavory thought however that my anti-MRA attitude of men needing to “man up” to their responsibilities towards women has been seen as “anti-male” and as implicitly subservient to women begging for women’s approval so that I end up with feminist minded women who see me as a useful tool to undermine and attack the “male centric” MRAs. One thing I have definitely noticed since proclaiming myself to be an MRA is that the quality of support I am getting from women has gone way up. The feminist minded women seem to be rejecting me as I am no longer “useful” to them but more truly traditional submissive women are coming to support me where they earlier kept their distance perhaps not wanting to be associated with my previous “anti-male” attitude.
I am definitely not regretting my decision to publicly align myself with the MRAs and the Manosphere overall due to the higher quality of women showing up to support me as a result.
The issue that Rollo Tomassi brings up is a serious issue; how to keep The Red Pill idea and the manosphere overall a “male friendly” space that serves the interests of men and is consistent with teaching men how best to pursue and achieve their goals as men.
There is a bit of a trend that seems to be developing of female commenters being banned or limited at websites to keep women from “corrupting” or unduly influencing what the men are “allowed to say” in the comments section. I am not opposed to creating such “male spaces” in principle but in regards to my own website I think it is good to have a variety of viewpoints being advocated for and for commenters to be challenged in their stated views. Also I think the voices of women add to the discussion. That it is good to know what women think about different issues and how they respond to different attitudes and behaviors of men.
One thing though is that men need to see women as being subordinate to themselves; that they as men have a right and a duty to be in control of the situation. What women say and how women feel about things is useful and important to know but what women express is a suggestion or a request or a stated desire; it is not a demand. A man needs to not see women in his social environment as his “equals.” He is the guardian of women acting ethically on their behalf.
Perhaps some of the problem of women “invading” male spaces is due to the men there wanting to get “buddy buddy” with the women and wanting to “impress” the women hoping for the woman’s approval. The man seeing the woman as a “buddy” is viewing the woman as an equal or a peer; this being a problem. The man “looking for approval” from the woman is even worse as then the man is allowing himself to be controlled by the woman and is allowing himself to be defined positively or negatively according to how the woman reacts to him. If however the man sees the woman as subordinate to himself in his interaction with the woman then the woman’s presence does no real harm and may help things out by giving the man more information regarding what the woman’s thinking is and what the woman’s needs are.
The culture overall does indeed want to impose the idea that men’s interests are only legitimate to the extent that they are accepted by women; that women decide what men’s role in society should be and that women are the ones who determine whether a man is good or bad depending on whether the man gains approval from the woman or is rejected by the woman. This overall cultural attitude does lead to it being very tempting and very expedient to try to find a woman to be the public face and public advocate for men’s rights issues and concerns so that the concerns and interests of men will be more “acceptable” and more “legitimate” in the eyes of the mainstream culture.
The funny thing is if you go to the “extremist” view of traditional patriarchy where women are subordinate to men and women’s interests come first; where there is a very strong ethic that men are to provide for and protect women; what you find is that there are far more women advocating for this point of view than there are men.
I would say that the manosphere should definitely be controlled by men and should express men’s interests and men’s agenda but that the higher idealistic purpose of the manosphere needs to be service to women and placing women’s needs first; placing women’s needs first so that women can best serve the needs of those dependent upon her, in particular children. The manosphere does not have a guardianship attitude towards women; this being my biggest criticism of the manosphere.
Tomassi recalling a post he wrote 4 years ago titled “Could a Man have written this?” made the observation:
“[I]t’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.”
It does indeed make sense that as the manosphere gains steam and starts to enter into mainstream consciousness that there will be a push to sanitize it and make it more compliant and acceptable to what Tomassi terms “the Feminine Imperative.” The key idea I think is to “hold frame.” To make sure that men are in control. The parts of the manosphere that seek to be pleasing to feminist minded women will be rewarded with cheap praise and surface level approval while vitriol and hatred will be heaped upon those men that “stand their ground” in defense of their role and position as men. The problem is that giving into feminist minded women will just return the men who succumb to this to the same old problems of feminism while the men who “stand their ground” will be rewarded with a much higher quality of woman who will be newly attracted to their steadfastness and purpose as men.
The thing is that the man must himself take the initiative to serve the woman and provide to the woman what the woman is entitled to and what the woman has a right to as a woman. The man must impose the burden of performance on himself according to his own moral values and goals and his own sense of what it means to be a man. Then the man offers to the woman what he believes he owes to the woman as a woman and the woman then takes it or leaves it. In this way the man is in control and the woman is cared for and taken care of as she should be.
The goal is not to seek the woman’s approval; the goal is to develop yourself as a man to be able to fulfill your obligations as a man and then be a man of high ethics and duty able to perform well the relationship functions and practical support functions of a man. Then whether the woman that you want approves of you or not is her choice; if she wants you then good and if she doesn’t want you then just go and find a woman who does want the kind of man that you have developed yourself to be.