I know the pieces fit ’cause I watched them tumble down
No fault, none to blame, it doesn’t mean I don’t desire to
Point the finger, blame the other, watch the temple topple over
To bring the pieces back together, rediscover communication
That which unifies the Manosphere is it’s fundamental belief in A is A (A) regarding inter-sexual relations. We reject the fantasy-world of “just be yourself”, the After-School Special in which the dorky nice guy gets the girl because she felt sorry for how badly her jock boyfriend beat him, and the idea that we can invent new identities for ourselves and reform our institutions in ways that ignore biological reality. Although feminism has successfully built a fragile facade of some sort of gender revolution, the Gods of the Copybook Headings have already eaten away at it. Nice guys get less action than ever, marriages built on “mutual submission” end in violent custody battles, “empowered” cougars haunt the local watering hole hoping to snag some dude to trick her into feeling like she matters for a half hour or so. Our inner cities, no longer lag behind the rest of our civilization, they are the new frontier, for today’s Detroit and Newark are tomorrow’s Peoria and Des Moines.
“…And the words of the prophets were written on the subway walls and tenement halls.”
Yet we’re not fully unified in our conception of A. Aside from a small faction that likes things the way they are, from PUA to hard-core fundamentalist, we mostly believe that a natural family structure would serve us best. Nevertheless, we disagree on what we can do about it.
I agree with Anarcho Papist’s categorization of the Manosphere, but among those who “rail against the Cathedral”, I draw somewhat a finer distinction:
The Hedonists: The “poolside seat” view of Roissy and others who might like to see our society go back to something more traditional but doubt it could ever happen. It’s too late. Women shouldn’t be sluts, but they are, so you might as well get while the getting’s good before the grid goes up and we’re have to trade .45 shells for canned food (or vice-versa). I would also put the MGTOW’s who either want to screw every woman literally but will never marry, or those who merely want to screw them figuratively and have nothing to do with them into this category.
The Moralists: The “we’ve got to save it” group that sees the same facts as Roissy & co., but believes that there’s a chance, albeit slight, that we might be able to turn things around, or at least make marriage a viable option for certain individuals. Into this category I’d place most of the Christian Manosphere, with Vox Day as it’s most prominent voice. I’d also put here the MGTOW’s who would love to marry but have given up.
We all agree that man need Game, but the Hedonists think it should be used to bang as many women as possible, the Moralists that we need it to secure a happy marriage. Indeed, there are those who want a wife eventually but don’t want to remain celibate until the magic day, but those are the basic categories.
The Moralists disapprove of the Hedonists not only because they don’t like their personal morality, but also because the more women who ride the carousel, the fewer quality women remain. The Hedonists discount these complaints as naive on two counts. First, “she was gonna get it somewhere no matter what I did to her”. Second, “you expect me to not get laid so that I can set myself up for the death-trap of modern marriage?”
Ironically, despite the standards of the Moralists, the Hedonists appear to be developing a stronger purist streak. Roissy is a notable exception in this regard, but Game was developed by the Hedonists, and when Game is used for anything other than hedonism, they get pretty damn upset. Game is about pussy: end of story. There’s no point in paying any attention to any woman you don’t want to bang, and it pays off to treat all of them like crap anyway. To see it otherwise is to contaminate the very concept of Game. The less you see her as a person, the more she’ll want you.
(Unfortunately, in most of the West, on this last point they’re usually right.)
The Hedonist believes that there’s nothing left to save (or perhaps nothing worth saving), so what the hell are the Moralists doing frequenting the sites of women? Don’t they know that the seemingly sweet Christian commenter would probably give it up for Virgle Kent if she thought she could get away with it?
To the Hedonist, there’s no point in dialogue; interaction with the mainstream will merely sanitize our beliefs while doing nothing to change the culture at large. Roosh:
And when the spotlight was moved onto this side of the sphere, who did it shine on? A married woman named Dr. Helen. She made the media rounds to cash in on a book which “borrowed” the ideas we have been masticating on for over five years. You’d think there would be outrage, but there was congratulations instead. She was looked on as a savior who may help us get more traffic to our blogs, a trailblazer that would bless us with exposure in the Huffington Post and The Atlantic. How sad is it for a community to decry white knighting but seek one in a married woman? I will never let a woman speak for me or the community I’m a part of, and the only way to ensure that is not to be a part of one where men are rushing to munch the carpet of an elderly woman in her 60s.
Apparently, there’s no point whatsoever for people of either gender who don’t frequent The Rational Male to understand why marriage has become such a raw deal for men. Fuck the message if the messenger isn’t one of US.
As one who’s glad that Dr. Helen is getting so much exposure, let me counter that I wasn’t looking for any sort of White Knight, I want to win. I don’t care if Dr. Helen, Rollo, Jimmy Carter, me, or some cartoon about a warthog gets our points across to the masses; I believe in Truth, and I want it spread. I’ve been fucked over by feminism, raised by a single mom who loved me but made countless mistakes, taught to stifle my own best traits and weaken myself. I’m angry, and I admit it,
But it’s not about my anger, it’s about living the life I was made to lead and helping others to do likewise. I refuse to denigrate Sunshine Mary for fighting false rape accusations or Stingray for promoting feminine submission because they’re fighting for things I believe in, even if they don’t have an identical agenda.
Can they creep in and alter things? Yes. There’s a feminine tendency to invade male spaces and change them for the worse. Dr. Helen and Stingray may share this tendency, but so far, they’re not acting on it, and if they do, we’ll just shut them up. I’m pretty sure that every Manosphere-friendly blogger would gladly stay away from any blog that tells them they’re not welcome.
But in the meantime, along with Roosh and the other Hedonists, they’re fighting feminism, too. Apparently that’s not good enough.
This time, it’s not the religious kooks who are the true believers. Not unlike the feminists who claimed that they only wanted women to be whatever they want to be as long as it’s not a scummy housewife, we’re now being told that Man is to live life on his own terms, as long as he doesn’t get married.
Don’t read the writings of men who don’t get laid. If a man can’t solve the challenge of getting his dick wet, he’s a poseur and internet warrior. He’s a bloviator, a troll. Don’t read the writings of men who don’t know how to walk up to a woman and start a conversation. Don’t read the writings of men who lavish attention on female commenters, because if he was getting laid in real life, he wouldn’t even notice them. Game is an obligatory pursuit for the Western man in 2013, and if he is not pursuing it, he’s not someone worth listening to. He’s weak and scared. He needs to talk to women instead of spending hours a day nurturing his beloved manosphere personality. His world view, contaminated by a lack of female intimacy, will lead you down the wrong path. These fools have tainted a community of men that exclusively stood for getting laid and spreading truth, but now rushes to pardon obvious fakes like Minter.
Was Mark Minter a hypocrite? Yes. So the fuck what.
Earlier in the post Roosh says “Bitterness is not a substitute for experience.” True, but with all of Roosh’s experience, read the above paragraph and tell me it’s somehow alleviated his bitterness.
I don’t want to go here, for I’d rather emphasize what we have in common. After all, we’ve got some pretty formidable enemies out there and I want all the allies I can get. Roosh has some amazing insights into human nature, and I know that he understands the good that Woman can be.
However, I’m coming to the conclusion that the secular nature of the Hedonists is going to lead to an inevitable fissure.
I don’t have the time to prove it here, but Man is wired to believe. Those who don’t believe in a Savior often look for human equivalents, and those who don’t believe in an other-worldly Heaven keep trying to make one here.
Dogma is not merely a religious phenomenon. As much as I admire a lot of what Ayn Rand had to say, Objectivists will often spout out “Ayn Rand says…” with as much certainly as any Christian quoting I Timothy. Anarcho Papist:
In the beginning there was Game, and men saw that it was good for getting laid. But then many noticed the apparent contradictions between feminism and Game. And thus the Manosphere was born.
And that’s their doctrine, getting laid. Sure, oppose feminism, but all that really matters is your mastery of the Goddess Poon. Decry any mainstream recognition for our ideas if it’s a woman who gets noticed for it. Judge men entirely based on how often they “get their dick wet”, and if you disagree, then obviously you can’t get any yourself.
Full disclosure, I liked a lot of what Minter had to say before his “fall”, but he reminded me a little too much of what Roosh reminds me of lately to take him too seriously. I doubt his marriage will work out, but I hope it does. To me, he’s a bit of a hypocrite.
But to those who care far more about “getting laid” than “spreading truth”, Minter wasn’t just “an obvious fake”, he’s an apostate.
Sorry, guys. I love a lot of your work. I got Why Can’t I Use a Smile Face? in the mail last week and I look forward to reading it. You’ve got some incredible insights, and I’ll get as many of them as I can until I’m banned or have to pay to read your posts online.
But I don’t see your “something purely masculine” having any more success than Operation Ann Arbor did in The Game. You’re becoming close-minded, insular, and exemplify a bitterness that I don’t want anything to do with.
And I can’t help but think that in twenty years, I’ll be doing far better by your standards than you will by mine.